Unfortunately, I find a lot of the arguments against DCC come from misconceptions about DCC. Some examples:
DCC means sound. No it doesn't. Many companies make locomotives with factory installed non-sound decoders. Or you can install non-sound decoders yourself. Non-sound decoders are much cheaper than sound ones, and you don't have to buy a speaker and enclosure.
DCC wiring is difficult. No, DCC wiring is easy. Multi-train DC wiring is hard. If your DC layout works well, you can just connect up a DCC system to it (two wires) and the layout will work fine.
DCC doesn't allow blocks. Yes it does. Most DCC layouts still are separated into blocks to allow for detection for signals, to allow an area like a roundhouse or engine service area to be turned off, or just to help track down problems. However, you only need an on/off for each block; you don't need to switch between several DC power outputs / powerpacks.
DCC requires a degree in computer programming. No. You get an engine with a factory installled decoder. You put it on the programming track and change the ID number from 03 to the number on the engine. Then you're done, the engine will run on DCC the same as it did on DC. You can go back later and add momentum or change how the lights work, but you don't have to.
Consisting is hard. No again. Each system is different, but basically you call up the ID of the lead engine. You press a button to add an engine and enter it's ID. That's it, both engines will respond to the lead engine's ID. Add another if you want.
Installing decoders is hard. Not really. Most engines made after 2000 have a DCC plug. Remove the dummy plug and plug in the decoder. Older engines may need to be "hardwired" but it's not difficult. If you've been in the hobby a while and are use to soldering wires, it's pretty straightforward. If you can wire a DC reverse loop, you can install a decoder. Once you do one, you'll wonder why you worried so much about it.
Something I rarely see mentioned in these discussions is what I consider the biggest advantage of DCC...
If I come to your layout as a guest operator, I know how to run your trains already.
Back when I used to do this, DCC layouts were just so simple.I picked up a controller, input my locomotive number, and I was off to the races.
No instructions on how the locate block seperations, how power isolation worked for parking locomotives, how to work reverse loops, making sure the next block was assigned to my cab, or anything else.
Just run your locomotive and do your thing.
That alone... that is worth its weight in gold.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Stix,
None of those are my misconceptions. But I do have personal opinions about those issues.
DCC means sound - no, but sound is best accomplished with DCC.
DCC wiring is difficult - no, but large new construction layouts are often over wired with power districts, buss wires, 300 feeder drops, circuit breakers, etc, etc. Not necessarily wiring that that takes lots of knowledge or engineering skill, but lots of wire none less. Yes a small DCC layout will work with two wires...
DCC does not allow blocks - not sure where you got this one from, but nobody has ever said that before. Fact is however, if you take a poll, DCC or DC, you will not find many modelers on here with signal blocks and signal systems on their layouts.
DCC requires a degree in computer programming - never said that either, but there is learning curve to the whole CV adjustments, etc.
Consisting is hard - no, it is just an annoying task I don't need.
Installing decoders is hard - no, but it is time consuming and fussy in those cases where you do need to hardwire. Sure plugging in a decoder is easy, but does not always make for the best install.
SeeYou190 Something I rarely see mentioned in these discussions is what I consider the biggest advantage of DCC... If I come to your layout as a guest operator, I know how to run your trains already. Back when I used to do this, DCC layouts were just so simple.I picked up a controller, input my locomotive number, and I was off to the races. No instructions on how the locate block seperations, how power isolation worked for parking locomotives, how to work reverse loops, making sure the next block was assigned to my cab, or anything else. Just run your locomotive and do your thing. That alone... that is worth its weight in gold. -Kevin
Agreed,
That is why my DC system is complex under the layout to make the user interface much like DCC.
Because left is always west, and east is always right, the direction buttons on my Aristo throttles are intuitive. With a dispatcher on duty I can hand you a throttle and say "obey the signals". All you then need to do is control the speed of the train.
Even without that I could set the whole layout to one throttle and let you go, or show you how to push just few buttons as you walk around with your train. Select your route at turnouts, push one other button to proceed along.
I don't have any confusing reverse loops, or places where the train is now going in the opposite direction to confuse you.
A similar level of simplicity is possible in DC as well.
Sheldon
When I first started operating layouts I was in Nashville as a college student in the middle 1980s.
Some of these layouts... good lord... nothing was intuitive.
The worst were the layouts with four or five cabs selected by a rotary switch. As you moved past cabs B and C, your train would jump in random speeds and directions as they temporarily took control.
Sure, there were ways around it, but few layout builders bothered. There was just so much more to be done back then. Adjusting twin-coil switch machines was a horrible time consuming task I am sure no one misses at all.
I really don't think I ever ran a truly well designed DC layout. I know I failed twice. Once on the Dream House layout, and once on the N scale layout for Scale Rails of Southwest Florida.
DCC makes multiple operators on a large layout much easier.
My large layout days are over. I plan to spend my remaining train time on craftsman kits and just playing with trains in no special manner all by myself.
Kevin,
The best DC layouts start with the track plan. There are track schemes that can be avoided with no loss of function that will make a good control system easier to implement.
And there are basic features, like the left is west, right is east feature that not only make the control system work better, it makes it more user friendly. I would still do that if I used DCC.
Rotary switches are a bad idea, as you experienced.
X sections that automatically connect two blocks correctly thru complex junctions and interlockings are a must. They actually cut the number of "blocks" in half.
There is a long list of semi automatic assignment schemes that streamline DC operation with no loss of function when compared to the most basic and typical DC block schemes.
It just requires a little planning.
First it is factually true that today's dual mode decoders in Athearn Genesis Tsunami 2 units and ScaleTrains rivet counter ESU Loksound 5.0 units produce the same sounds in both plain dc and dcc operation with the exception that in plain dc one cannot easily blow the diesel horn. All the lights come on by default in plain dc for most Genesis 2.0 AND Scaletrains units, unless clearly stated otherwise by Athearn. Even red Canadian National DPU Marker Lights (correct Canadian terminology) default to ON in plain dc and are directional.
So dcc is NOT required to enjoy most default features of these engines. Even ScaleTrains ground lights default to ON in plain dc operation.
We have tried to switch almost entirely to dcc operation for my son's desires to operate horn etc.
It has NOT been a good experience.
Some back emf equipped locos will not run well with other engines in dcc. My dealer's technician says they can even cause damage to other engines' boards and decoders and that this is a little known but recent problem. Speed matching of locos in dcc is also more difficult than some would have you to believe. In oder for engines to run well, it would be preferable to use the back emf if/when you have it. That means one may end up speed matching units of only one brand of decoder with each other but maybe not with other brands.
I have been informed by NCE that Kato track is junk for dcc operation and that I must remove and replace all of it. They want virtually every rail joiner soldered regardless of power drop location or bus wire size. They say soldered joiners are absolutely required for good dcc operation.
My layout was built 18 years ago and not designed for dcc operation. Except for not being able to blow the horn, ALL my dcc equipped units: Genesis 2.0 and Scaletrains rivet counter, operate better and run better on my layout with plain dc (we have a toggle switch to turn power on or off to both dc and dcc).
I have even begun to replace some of those engines with plain dc only models.
John, I understand your frustration.
Personally, I would have never chosen Kato track, but that is another discussion.
For 56 years, all my DC layouts have had all rail joints soldered with in each electrical block with only one feeder. Some blocks being 40-50 feet long. No issues in DC.
No matter how well these new dual mode decoders work, they still do not work with PWM DC throttles like the Aristo Craft TE that I use.
Hope you get things sorted out.
Thank you.
At some point in future when sons are gone and housing market stabilizes the solution is to move and build a new layout. Until then try to get by.
Also a number of new locos are experiencing motor failures even on a brand new 2023 production diesel just off the boat, in less than one week of being here. I am returning them for warranty repair, but one warranty replaced motor lasted less than one month before failing again. Issues are not limited to me or my layout but other people are having same issues dating back to 2022 production diesels.
Others also have units with failed motors after repair. Not willing to call manufacturer out as they have or will have 2 units of mine for repair so why burn bridges...but son most disappointed as they are his units. We do not own any Bowser units currently so not them.
John
expect this to be lost in all the other posts about the pro/cons of DCC
PM RailfanWaybills, switching, forwarding, inventory, video monitoring, programming, automation, i mean the list goes on and on for what a PC could do.
ATLANTIC CENTRALATLANTIC CENTRAL wrote the following post 6 hours ago: PM Railfan, I understood, a single complete adaptable system.
I understood, a single complete adaptable system.
i was surprised to read that you agree with PM. I guess it's not clear what "adaptable" and "integrated" mean
when PM said "list goes on and on for what a PC could do" it sounded like all the model RR devices should be PC based because
PM RailfanDCC systems are finite in that they can only do what they do from the factory. Thats it. A PC can be programmed to do that, and so much more. Its infinite compared to finite.
presumably the point is that the PC can be reprogrammed -- updated, fixed, improved and combined with other MR features such as waybills.
Sheldon, the hardware you describe built into the layout is not as easily changed (i.e. adaptable) as just modifying the code on a PC
i'll agree with the concept of making MR devices upgradable. i recently did firmware upgrades of digitrax components. the technology is changing and to PM's point, PCs aren't the only devices that can be reprogrammed.
and i'll agree that capturing the logic to control the layout: turnouts, signals, monitoring block detectors, turnout feedback is easier to implement and update on a central PC
but of course, no one wants to be encumbered by using a PC to control a loco and that is why devices other then PCs are necessary
i believe MR control is becoming more distributed among many intelligent components that control and can be controlled from different parts of the layout. These components are reprogrammable but more important, can easily be reconfigured as layout elements change.
what is even more interesting is that they don't necessarily need to know about one another. by simply sharing information -- blk 123 occupied -- any component needing that information can act on it.
this means components can potenitally be added/replaced/removed without requiring changes to the existing elements
so back to PMs points, i believe they are being realized today, perhaps better than imagined
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
John, that has to be so frustrating. I glad I am not buying many locos these days. I have some RS units on pre-order from Bowser, that's about it. I may pickup a few Bachmann USRA Pacific's from their new release. Their B&O P5 is being offered without DCC and would be any easy kitbash to P6, considering I already have Delta trailing trucks that will fit. And the other roadnames offered have the right details for my ATLANTIC CENTRAL.
There are only a few other locos I would even want at this point.
I am right on the edge of having more locos than the layout needs, so it is time to stop.
gregc expect this to be lost in all the other posts about the pro/cons of DCC PM Railfan Waybills, switching, forwarding, inventory, video monitoring, programming, automation, i mean the list goes on and on for what a PC could do. ATLANTIC CENTRAL ATLANTIC CENTRAL wrote the following post 6 hours ago: PM Railfan, I understood, a single complete adaptable system. Sheldon i was surprised to read that you agree with PM. I guess it's not clear what "adaptable" and "integrated" mean when PM said "list goes on and on for what a PC could do" it sounded like all the model RR devices should be PC based because PM Railfan DCC systems are finite in that they can only do what they do from the factory. Thats it. A PC can be programmed to do that, and so much more. Its infinite compared to finite. presumably the point is that the PC can be reprogrammed -- updated, fixed, improved and combined with other MR features such as waybills. Sheldon, the hardware you describe built into the layout is not as easily changed (i.e. adaptable) as just modifying the code on a PC i'll agree with the concept of making MR devices upgradable. i recently did firmware upgrades of digitrax components. the technology is changing and to PM's point, PCs aren't the only devices that can be reprogrammed. and i'll agree that capturing the logic to control the layout: turnouts, signals, monitoring block detectors, turnout feedback is easier to implement and update on a central PC but of course, no one wants to be encumbered by using a PC to control a loco and that is why devices other then PCs are necessary i believe MR control is becoming more distributed among many intelligent components that control and can be controlled from different parts of the layout. These components are reprogrammable but more important, can easily be reconfigured as layout elements change. what is even more interesting is that they don't necessarily need to know about one another. by simply sharing information -- blk 123 occupied -- any component needing that information can act on it. this means components can potenitally be added/replaced/removed without requiring changes to the existing elements so back to PMs points, i believe they are being realized today, perhaps better than imagined
PM Railfan Waybills, switching, forwarding, inventory, video monitoring, programming, automation, i mean the list goes on and on for what a PC could do.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL ATLANTIC CENTRAL wrote the following post 6 hours ago: PM Railfan, I understood, a single complete adaptable system.
PM Railfan DCC systems are finite in that they can only do what they do from the factory. Thats it. A PC can be programmed to do that, and so much more. Its infinite compared to finite.
Greg, I was not saying I agree completely about the PC thing, I was just saying I understand his point. It is related to my point that DCC does little or nothing to make signaling easier.
I had an internet friend in the tractor hobby who was a machinist, woodworker and computer software engineer. He got into model trains about a decade ago and asked me a lot of questions. He also did lots of research on his own.
His conclusion about DCC, he called it a clunky outdated mess.
I think his health is failing as I have not heard from him in a while, so I don't know how the train thing ever worked out for him. But he was a smart guy.....
To my stuff:
I'm not worried about making changes. I am pretty thorough going in, and I don't change my mind about what I want much.
Well documented hard logic is not that hard to change, but I doubt I will change much after it is built.
My hardware is de-centralized to keep the highest wire counts short. Reworking one interlocking would not effect the others.
I have circuit boards that the relays plug into for the most complex and repetitively used circuits, and most stuff is wired on the bench than installed and connected.
As far as DCC and independent control goes, direct radio is a better approach, get rid of this data on the power circuit. Just my view, but I don't see that happening on a large scale in my lifetime, so I'm building what I have.
And again, I count wiring complexity in terms of how many wires I have to terminate as a technician. A three color signal has 4 wires to connect, no matter what they connect to.
The other point for me, that Digitrax throttle does about 35 things I have no use for and no interest in.
My top priorities are simple to use throttles and the signaling/CTC.
For three pages now people have said "DCC will do this", and for three pages I have said "I don't need to do that, I need this other thing that DCC does not help me with".
DCC would just give me hundreds of hours of extra work mainly so I could squeeze a few extra locos in the engine terminal and I would still have to build the signaling system, with one technology or the other. And I would still need the blocks, and still need the turnout controls.
The cab selection part is integrated into the signaling and turnout controls, so replacing that with DCC would not really save measurable time or money, and provide only the smallest benefit in my case.
ATLANTIC CENTRALIt is related to my point that DCC does little or nothing to make signaling easier.
i'll highlight the above just to emphasis that there still seems to be a lot of confusion about what DCC does and doesn't do.
i think we're simpatico(2nd) on most things
i assume you're not suggesting DC makes signalling easier? i believe DC/DCC has little impact on signalling
earlier i was thinking about a more complete MR control system and concluded that while you probably couldn't replace DC with DCC and add decoders, you couldn't do the opposite without a lot more work. in other words, DC and DCC are not quite equivalent.
ATLANTIC CENTRALDCC would just give me hundreds of hours of extra work mainly so I could squeeze a few extra locos in the engine terminal and I would still have to build the signaling system, with one technology or the other. And I would still need the blocks, and still need the turnout controls.
but considering the use of block detectors, turnout control and signals on a relatively large layout required to run 6+ trains at a time, i believe DCC makes the layout wiring simpler and frees up time for detection, turnout and signal wiring
i think it would be difficult for club members to runs their trains around the mainlines (3 trains per b&o and western md) with DC and difficult to imagine the necessary wiring
ATLANTIC CENTRALI have circuit boards that the relays plug into for the most complex and repetitively used circuits, and most stuff is wired on the bench than installed and connected.
back to PMs points, it's kinda Star Trekky to just plug in a USB cable to a processor board and reprogram it's logic. (a lot easier than replacing EEPROMs which were used in 1985 data terminals i worked on)
i've kinda settled on each node being a WiFi capable esp32 board with 2 I/O expander chips providing a total of 32 I/O bits that can monitor block detectors or control signals. (turnouts are controlled by LocoNet on the club layout).
each node is programmed with the same program, but the configuration stored in EEPROM of each node is different. the EEPROM is updated with a command thru the serial interface
i do want to repeat -- there still seems to be a lot of confusion about what DCC does and doesn't do.
Just as a side note, the Aristo thottles could do complex stuff too with some of their added accesories.
PRR8259I have been informed by NCE that Kato track is junk for dcc operation and that I must remove and replace all of it. They want virtually every rail joiner soldered regardless of power drop location or bus wire size. They say soldered joiners are absolutely required for good dcc operation.
That is absolute nonsense! I have a layout with a 1 scale mile mainline and two decent sized yards, all using Kato Unitrack with absolutely no problems. I found testing things out on my previous layout that Kato Unitrack has better electrical continuity than regular track with soldered joints. No idea why someone at NCE would tell you not to use Kato?
I disagree, I have a fairly large layout (see post above) with no track bus wires etc. It's just wired with Model Power wire. Since it's spread over a large area, I do use a couple of power boosters - but a DC layout would have the same problem but not a solution like a booster. Again, the idea that DCC wiring has to be so different from DC wiring just isn't true - except you don't have to have all the wiring for extra blocks and throttles.
ATLANTIC CENTRALDCC does not allow blocks - not sure where you got this one from, but nobody has ever said that before. Fact is however, if you take a poll, DCC or DC, you will not find many modelers on here with signal blocks and signal systems on their layouts.
One of the earlier replies in this thread had someone saying they didn't want to do DCC because they wanted to break the track into blocks for signalling and you can't do that in DCC.
wjstixhey didn't want to do DCC because they wanted to break the track into blocks for signalling and you can't do that in DCC.
the club layout is blocked. each block powered thru a PSX circuit breaker, both to limit the impact of shorts (derailments) on the rest of the layout and now, because PSXs have block detectors, signals
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL It is related to my point that DCC does little or nothing to make signaling easier. i'll highlight the above just to emphasis that there still seems to be a lot of confusion about what DCC does and doesn't do. i think we're simpatico(2nd) on most things i assume you're not suggesting DC makes signalling easier? i believe DC/DCC has little impact on signalling earlier i was thinking about a more complete MR control system and concluded that while you probably couldn't replace DC with DCC and add decoders, you couldn't do the opposite without a lot more work. in other words, DC and DCC are not quite equivalent. ATLANTIC CENTRAL DCC would just give me hundreds of hours of extra work mainly so I could squeeze a few extra locos in the engine terminal and I would still have to build the signaling system, with one technology or the other. And I would still need the blocks, and still need the turnout controls. but considering the use of block detectors, turnout control and signals on a relatively large layout required to run 6+ trains at a time, i believe DCC makes the layout wiring simpler and frees up time for detection, turnout and signal wiring i think it would be difficult for club members to runs their trains around the mainlines (3 trains per b&o and western md) with DC and difficult to imagine the necessary wiring ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have circuit boards that the relays plug into for the most complex and repetitively used circuits, and most stuff is wired on the bench than installed and connected. back to PMs points, it's kinda Star Trekky to just plug in a USB cable to a processor board and reprogram it's logic. (a lot easier than replacing EEPROMs which were used in 1985 data terminals i worked on) i've kinda settled on each node being a WiFi capable esp32 board with 2 I/O expander chips providing a total of 32 I/O bits that can monitor block detectors or control signals. (turnouts are controlled by LocoNet on the club layout). each node is programmed with the same program, but the configuration stored in EEPROM of each node is different. the EEPROM is updated with a command thru the serial interface i do want to repeat -- there still seems to be a lot of confusion about what DCC does and doesn't do.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL It is related to my point that DCC does little or nothing to make signaling easier.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL DCC would just give me hundreds of hours of extra work mainly so I could squeeze a few extra locos in the engine terminal and I would still have to build the signaling system, with one technology or the other. And I would still need the blocks, and still need the turnout controls.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have circuit boards that the relays plug into for the most complex and repetitively used circuits, and most stuff is wired on the bench than installed and connected.
Greg, agreed, I'm not saying DC makes signaling easier, I think the complexity of any signal system, no matter how it is implemented, is about the same for DCC or DC.
For you a solid state solution is best, it is what you know. While I have some solid state background, I am not up to date with small processors or anytrhing that needs to be "programmed" it is not something I have kept up with over the years dispite my exposure to it years ago.
It would be a steep learning curve at this point.
OK, I could hook up a DCC system to replace the eight throttles and the turnout controls and signaling would still work - mostly.
My system depends on the cab selection process to verify dispatcher permission. In other words you get a green signal when the route is correctly aligned and the block you are coming from and the block you are going to are assigned to the same throttle.
So the dispatcher would still have to push the buttons that currently assign the cab to the blocks for the CTC signals to work.
It could be redesigned, but I have never considered the details other than the dispatcher permission could be deleated and the simple act of aligning the route would give a green indication unless the detection showed a train in the block ahead.
This is the part you don't seem to get, the cab selection, turnout controls and the CTC are intergrated into each other.
The CTC is not a full scale prototype CTC panel - I have no interest in all those extra steps for dispatching.
It works like this - the CTC panel is a straight line map of the layout like any CTC panel. But turnouts are controlled with lighted pushbuttons on the track diagram. The lights map out the route selected.
Other LED indicators show train detection.
A set of cab selection buttons is also right in the track diagram for each primary block. Six cab buttons and a reset button, also small lighted pushbuttons.
You are in block 001, you are on throttle A, the dispatcher can see this by which lights are lit. He wants you to proceed to block 003, he sets the route with one button in most cases.
When he is ready to give you a clear signal, he pushes the throttle A button on block 003. The block is now connected to your cab, your signal turns green, and the trackage thru the interlocking is automaticly connected to your cab as well.
Before that the trackage thru the interlocking was effectively dead to your train even though the route was aligned.
You can proceed.
With no dispatcher, the same thing happens because at each interlocking the map and buttons for that area only are repeated on a tower panel for you to control yourself as you walk around. The dispatcher can disable the tower panel buttons so that you cannot override him.
So with a dispatcher on duty, you walk around with your train, and obey the signals.
With no disapatcher you set your own route at each interlocking and assign your throttle to the next block.
So every primary block has a set of buttons at each end and a set on the dispatchers panel. Even including the staging yards, there are only 25 primary blocks on the CTC controlled part of the layout, 12 in each direction and the stub end staging yard.
Maybe that helps you imagine how it works, maybe not.
But the engineer does not have to think about cab assignments when the dispatcher is on duty, by giving them permission for the next block, he also turns on their power for the next block.
And they don't have to think about turnouts either - like real CTC, they just drive the train.
Stix--
I am reporting what NCE told my dealer after we tested the store layout with the store's NCE Power Cab system and could not run 4 diesels on the 15 lineal foot layout. They could not draw the needed current which was about 1 amp indicated. Another poster on another forum told me the NCE Power cab being only a 2 amp introductory system cannot get the full 2 amps to the rails.
My son wants to run long trains that require 0.8 to 1 amp.
NCE says the main thing is the unsoldered joiners and not bus wire or connectors from track to bus.
This is NCE's official position. For us to run a long train it works very well in plain dc on an 18 volt-amp new MRC power supply. It does not work in dcc.
Respectfully submitted
wjstix I disagree, I have a fairly large layout (see post above) with no track bus wires etc. It's just wired with Model Power wire. Since it's spread over a large area, I do use a couple of power boosters - but a DC layout would have the same problem but not a solution like a booster. Again, the idea that DCC wiring has to be so different from DC wiring just isn't true - except you don't have to have all the wiring for extra blocks and throttles. ATLANTIC CENTRAL DCC does not allow blocks - not sure where you got this one from, but nobody has ever said that before. Fact is however, if you take a poll, DCC or DC, you will not find many modelers on here with signal blocks and signal systems on their layouts. One of the earlier replies in this thread had someone saying they didn't want to do DCC because they wanted to break the track into blocks for signalling and you can't do that in DCC.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL DCC does not allow blocks - not sure where you got this one from, but nobody has ever said that before. Fact is however, if you take a poll, DCC or DC, you will not find many modelers on here with signal blocks and signal systems on their layouts.
I'm not saying I agree with the idea that all that buss wire and multi drops are needed, but that is what the DCC "community" recommends and that is what most people do on larger layouts.
I've never had and noticeable voltage drop issues with DC, but again, all my rail joints are soldered.
wjstix PRR8259 I have been informed by NCE that Kato track is junk for dcc operation and that I must remove and replace all of it. They want virtually every rail joiner soldered regardless of power drop location or bus wire size. They say soldered joiners are absolutely required for good dcc operation. That is absolute nonsense! I have a layout with a 1 scale mile mainline and two decent sized yards, all using Kato Unitrack with absolutely no problems. I found testing things out on my previous layout that Kato Unitrack has better electrical continuity than regular track with soldered joints. No idea why someone at NCE would tell you not to use Kato?
PRR8259 I have been informed by NCE that Kato track is junk for dcc operation and that I must remove and replace all of it. They want virtually every rail joiner soldered regardless of power drop location or bus wire size. They say soldered joiners are absolutely required for good dcc operation.
A scale mile - 61' ?
My last layout, and the new one I am building have 420' of double track mainline, or about 7 scale miles x 2 = 14 scale miles.
I have single blocks that are nearly a scale mile.
One of my 7 staging yards is 10 tracks, 22' long each, or more than 3.6 scale miles of track in that yard alone.
Again, no voltage drop issues with soldered rail joints in DC - 56 years now.
Well, because my 81' mainline wasn't working well enough, we decided to try the store's 15' layout with the store's system. Either way, the engines could not reliably draw the needed 1 amp or so of power without stalling (used 4 of my consignment engines that were at the store for sale). The store layout is Bachmann EZ track (snap track) also unsoldered.
When my buddy finds his 5 amp system (currently in a storage tote somewhere, and he was robbed recently) we will try my 81' mainline with a 5 amp system to see if it makes any difference (I cannot afford to just go buy a 5 amp system at this time merely to test it).
My son's long trains factually draw about 0.8 amps if there are 3 units, and at that point, in dcc, they begin stalling and intermittently restarting.
With the 18 volt-amp MRC dc power supply that just does not happen. I can easily run 4 diesels, with plenty of power for any train remaining (4 diesels in plain dc is about 50% of the available dc throttle).
I'm not saying that I 100% agree with NCE, and I'm an electrical relative dummy, but I can understand Stix and others having objections to what I was told. Also, it is true that the power drops I have may not be close enough together for dcc operation. The layout, again, was never designed for that, so that may be part of the problem.
More testing to come...
ATLANTIC CENTRALThis is the part you don't seem to get, the cab selection, turnout controls and the CTC are intergrated into each other.
ATLANTIC CENTRALA set of cab selection buttons is also right in the track diagram for each primary block. Six cab buttons and a reset button, also small lighted pushbuttons.
i'm curious to see a track diagram panel
i don't understand what you think i don't get
this is the first time you've mentioned the cab select buttons (kinda wondered) i understand that the logic to control the turnouts, signals, power the tracks based on throttle and any other I/O (e.g CTC) is implemented in the hardware under the bench which may have connections to other hardware, i assume implemented using relay logic as we've discussed before
i'm more confortable with a firmware, not a solid state approach. (a solid state approach might used digital logic ICs and mosfets)
i assume you can understand that the logic to implement the logic would be similar for each case. this could be implemented in separate code for each interlock, but instead of duplicating the code and modifying it for each interlock, i would use tables that capture the parameters for each interlock.
those parameters include the I/O pins for the devices (e.g turnout, signals) and description of the logic to control the interlock which could be just like an interlock, a series of (armstrong lever) changes where one could be blocked if some condition isn't as expected (towers did it with mechanical devices)
below is a panel for one side of an 8 track passenger station. there are 75 routes thru the interlock selected by pressing a pair of buttons on either side of the route.
it uses the approach i describe above using a table to describe the switch positions for each route. (it is not an interlock) Since i've left NJ, the owner added the panel, rewired the connections, has edited the route table and reprogramed the Arduino
Greg, I don't have any pictures of my old panels, I have not built any new panels. For years I simply was not a photo bug, took very few pictures.
I do have a few pictures of the panels from a different version of my system built for a single track layout with no signaling. Each town uses a panel like this:
In this case there are two blocks separating each "town" which have a passing siding and other trackage. There is no cab assignment for the two passing siding tracks.
They get their power from the single track blocks based on turnout position. Turnouts are manually thrown but have electrical contacts to power relays that route the track power.
Some 20 years ago I designed this single track version and installed it on the layout of a friend, replacing a typical toggle switch DC system with teathered throttles.
The DCC users in our local group had no trouble using it and all said it was a big improvement over the previous DC system.
My friend passed away about 5 years ago, but last I heard his family still maintains and operates the layout.
The buttons in the photo are the same ones I use for everything.
Here is the relay board undr one of those typical towns:
This layout uses four Aristo throttles.
Poor photo but this is what the throttles and their base stations look like.
Here is a quick sketch of a panel for a simple interlocking with two crossovers.
So 4 primary blocks meet with the obvious available routes.
Obviously many interlockings are more complex and have additional diverging routes, but the principles are the same.
Your train approaches from the lower left, needs to crossover the the upper right. You are already assigned the lower left block. You or the dispatcher push the one button for the crossover you need, and your matching cab button on the upper right block. You proceed toward the next interlocking.
In most cases there is just one block between interlockings, but in the rare case of two blocks, there would be an aditional set of buttons for the second block.
I only have that situation twice on the new layout.
Greg, one more important thought. We have talked about that interlocking on the NJ layout before. I will say, very impressive.
I have no interest in building anything that complex. I fail at any attempt to model real life track arrangements, and I don't have that kind of room.
I could do it with my system, but it would be a lot, think one ice cube for each route.
I have one really complex interlocking on my new layout. Two double track mainlines come parallel to each other and a yard lead branches off one side.
You should be able to see it if you look lower center:
That is complex enough for my operating scheme.
thanks for posting the photos
look great. very interesting
A few more facts, maybe obvious, maybe not.
If a block is assigned to a cab, and you push a button to assign it to a different cab, it switches directly to the newly requested cab. So, you do have the personal responsibility to make sure the block is available. That is why there is occupancy indication on each tower panel and the dispatchers panel. But again, with a dispatcher, that is his job, not the engineer.
But this feature allows operators to not be concerned with turning off blocks as they leave them. The dispatcher will reassign them or turn them off as needed, or without a dispatcher the next operator can take the block when the occupancy is clear.
The reset button disconnects the selected cab, leaving the block completely dead.
On system startup no cabs are assigned and all turnouts reset to their default "normal".
I am considering additional wiring that would lock out the turnout controls if a train is in the interlocking territory - just like the prototype.
Signals that are hard to see will be repeated on the tower panels or overhead occupancy panels as needed. But just like a real dispatchers panel, there will not be repeaters of the signal aspects there. Dispatchers only care where the trains are, how the route is set and who they gave permission to. Their panel tells them all that with a minimum number of lights.
All signals are "Absolute" or "Control point" signals - BUT, there will be approach signals half way thru each block that will give the appearance of permissive bock signals.
Not all signal aspects will be modeled, so in some places there will be a yellow aspect that you will never see lit. Or in the case of those approach signals you will never see the red lit. When their home signal is red, they show yellow, when their home signal is green, they show green.
Interlockings will be speed signaled with multiple heads typical to eastern practices.
There is no attempt to be completely prototypical to a specific road, just representitive of typical practice - simplified for selective compression and reasonably easy for operators to learn, understand and obey. It is after all a Protolance layout.
Hidden staging tracks will most likely only be available thru the dispatcher, still deciding on the details there. But there will need to be some sort of staging information available to operators as they leave the visable part of the layout. There will be an occupancy map of the hidden trackage.
It's pretty easy to use, the throttles only have five buttons as it relates to controlling the train. FASTER, SLOWER, EAST, WEST, EMERGENCY.
They have incredible range and reliablity. At my old house the layout was in the second floor of the detached garage. I could control the trains from 40' down the driveway from the garage....
The main yard has its own special wiring scheme that allows separate operators to work the yard independantly from each end. Mostly based just on turnout position. And with the push of a button the yard becomes one block instead of two.
Industrial switching areas are each their own block and can be assigned to various throttles. All dead end sidings go dead if the turnout is against them, so you can park locos all over the place if needed.
The engine terminal is a little more involved.....
Sheldon--
It's actually a really nice track plan that you have. Much less cluttered than some, and so a bit more simplistic, and I can appreciate the beauty of simplicity. It looks really good to me. Yet at the same time way more complicated than mine. Sure I have an 81' run and a long siding, but that's it. My goal was purely to railfan my own trains, and for much of the time the simple plan does exactly what we want it to do, and we are happy.
I've offered to my son that we could redo--re-scenic the layout however he wants, but he seems loathe to do that. Don't know how else he'll learn though...but he'd want floor to ceiling Rocky Mountains and that seems daunting at best.
PRR8259 Sheldon-- It's actually a really nice track plan that you have. Much less cluttered than some, and so a bit more simplistic, and I can appreciate the beauty of simplicity. It looks really good to me. Yet at the same time way more complicated than mine. Sure I have an 81' run and a long siding, but that's it. My goal was purely to railfan my own trains, and for much of the time the simple plan does exactly what we want it to do, and we are happy. I've offered to my son that we could redo--re-scenic the layout however he wants, but he seems loathe to do that. Don't know how else he'll learn though...but he'd want floor to ceiling Rocky Mountains and that seems daunting at best.
Thank you John.
Large and complex are separate ideas. I prefer to use the space for broad curves, expansive scenery, and trackage to accommodate long trains.
Some aspects turned out just a little more complex than I was hoping for. Some of the hidden staging not shown on that drawing took a little more complexity than originally planned. But being able to stage lots of trains was an important feature. It will stage about 30 trains depending on their length.
Yes, the mainline scheme is simple, it models only one small city and some countryside. Minimum mainline curves are 36" with most more in the 38" to 42" range.
While my layout will have a reasonable number of industries, it does have a strong "railfan" or display theme to it. That was intentional. It has 5 "disquised" display loops for display running.
And most of the industries are off the mainline, like a separate ISL tucked into the layout.
Benchwork is started, and a pile of lumber is waiting for some of my tools to come home from our current work job. Then I have plans for a big construction push on the benchwork.
Most of the supplies are on hand, just need a break from a busy work schedule.
Well, I particularly liked the use of the wye and I liked that it avoids the classic or not-so-classic "spaghetti bowl" aspect of model railroading. Far too many layouts go too far with too much trackage, and it appears that you are avoiding that while, as you say (tough to only see plan view) opening up the scenic opportunities. I like that the trackwork all looks like it has a legitimate purpose to it and not merely throwing more track down. So clearly there was some restraint evident in the planning. Good job. Don't know that I'd ever get there.
I really appreciate the open country running where you were able to do it. That in particular is a really nice feature of the plan--the wide radii and extensive sections of double track.