OvermodIf you were actually doing this with (somewhat) modern hardware, your 'peripherals' would all be designed to use USB or USB-C, or to bridge to WiFi or Infiniband or whatever
for a while now ... Digitrax supports Wifi. a UR92/93 transceiver can be installed like a UTP panel. newer wifi capable throttles are available. existing throttle can be sent back a upgraded.
this is an example of
gregcsystems architectures distribute intelligence and share data. components are easily upgradeable without needing to replace/disrupt the entire system
software upgrades are limited to hardware capabilities. the hardware of monolithic systems (i.e. PC) become obsolete and expensive to replace
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregci thought the idea was all the smarts was in the PC that could be reprogrammed? as if a new protocol that replaces DCC could be implemented with a software update without replacing the decoders
The genius of the system is in the method of modulation, not the transmitted code. Instead of imposing a control signal on DC-carrying wires, the Lenz/DCC system provides what is essentially long-period square-wave "AC" with square-wave binary PCM switching the voltage. (And the signal repeated across one 'reversal of AC polarity' so information is not lost...)
You could easily change the modulation scheme transmitting the data, limited only by the effective slew rate of the square wave generation. If you use any kind of wireless at all, you can transvert that information to compatible DCC to continue using older decoders and equipment. Or about equally easily, you could take a DCC signal and transvert the information to a suitable wireless protocol or instantiation.
The key -- as usual with these sorts of things -- is to have an effective and well-maintained flexible set of standards first. My opinion is that continuing to use the operating or charging power applied to the track to send modulation to and from the powered devices is highly sensible, including any cases where you also send wireless modulation as well, but to me that's just common sense.
If you were actually doing this with (somewhat) modern hardware, your 'peripherals' would all be designed to use USB or USB-C, or to bridge to WiFi or Infiniband or whatever. (No one with any sense at all would use Bluetooth for anything involved with walkaround control, imho...)
In the distant, hopeful days of the 1980s, a hot topic in 'wearable computing' was the desire for a standardized set of APIs for what we called 'PANs' (for 'personal area networks) that would manage a combination of hardwired, plug-and-play, and wireless devices to a standard secure interface between a 'user' and his or her system. I am still proud of my wearable that used a Chips and Technologies AT, a Reflection Technologies monitor, and a B&H camcorder beltpack, which would use a nascent technology called 'cellular radio' for data communication. Much has changed, almost all of it for the better, since those ancient times. The entire job of the PAN can now be handled via wideband wireless and IoT protocols, with whatever security and error compensation needed rolled right into the system. And at microamp idling power levels, too.
Leaving entirely aside the use of smartphones as control heads... or devices attaching to the screens of smartphones that implement physical knob and switch functions for those of us who don't like, say, speed control with buttons devoid of haptic feedback...
Doughless xboxtravis7992 Serious question, why is this the hill people want to die on?Personally I do favor DCC systems, but I can consider some design situations where I would consider a DC set up as well (i.e. building a small diorama or setting up a Christmas tree loop). To be fair to both parties it is worth pointing out DC is not going the way of the dodo as many DC locomotives continue to be produced, and likewise DCC is not some magic newfangled black-box new technology as the NMRA DCC standards date back to the 1980's. Both of these are mature technology options If we consider this as a design question at its core, why must we write pages of diatrabe over something which objectively has no correct answer? If DC isn't going away, is it because there are so many folks that conceptualize layouts like you do, and if they run DC, they have either a small diorama or a Christmas tree loop? Is DC still around because there are that many of those kinds of hobbyists? Or is it because they understand that DCC is not that complicated, no big deal, but have made reasonable choices about what they want to use for their layout and realize it offers them no usuable advantages in their situation. The advantages have to be able to be used on the layout, or else there is no common sense reason to have it. When the railroad that is modeled is 10 miles long, 50 miles long, 80 miles long; and you Google Earth the Right of Way, oftentimes what you see is a single string of track snaking through the countryside with 3 or 4 major industries along the way....usually a big one at the end of the line....and maybe two runaround sidings along the entire line (Real railroads HATE complex track arrangements), you quickly realize that reducing this railroad to modeled size does not require complex DC wiring...and therefore...never presents the problem that DCC was designed to solve. Its much more than a diorama or Christmas tree loop. Model Railroading isn't either about 3 different railroad mainlines looping over each other, criss crossing over each other, circa 1950...a complete wiring mess...or else its a loop of track around a Christmas tree. There is lots of it in between.
xboxtravis7992 Serious question, why is this the hill people want to die on?Personally I do favor DCC systems, but I can consider some design situations where I would consider a DC set up as well (i.e. building a small diorama or setting up a Christmas tree loop). To be fair to both parties it is worth pointing out DC is not going the way of the dodo as many DC locomotives continue to be produced, and likewise DCC is not some magic newfangled black-box new technology as the NMRA DCC standards date back to the 1980's. Both of these are mature technology options If we consider this as a design question at its core, why must we write pages of diatrabe over something which objectively has no correct answer?
Serious question, why is this the hill people want to die on?Personally I do favor DCC systems, but I can consider some design situations where I would consider a DC set up as well (i.e. building a small diorama or setting up a Christmas tree loop). To be fair to both parties it is worth pointing out DC is not going the way of the dodo as many DC locomotives continue to be produced, and likewise DCC is not some magic newfangled black-box new technology as the NMRA DCC standards date back to the 1980's.
Both of these are mature technology options
If we consider this as a design question at its core, why must we write pages of diatrabe over something which objectively has no correct answer?
If DC isn't going away, is it because there are so many folks that conceptualize layouts like you do, and if they run DC, they have either a small diorama or a Christmas tree loop? Is DC still around because there are that many of those kinds of hobbyists?
Or is it because they understand that DCC is not that complicated, no big deal, but have made reasonable choices about what they want to use for their layout and realize it offers them no usuable advantages in their situation.
The advantages have to be able to be used on the layout, or else there is no common sense reason to have it.
When the railroad that is modeled is 10 miles long, 50 miles long, 80 miles long; and you Google Earth the Right of Way, oftentimes what you see is a single string of track snaking through the countryside with 3 or 4 major industries along the way....usually a big one at the end of the line....and maybe two runaround sidings along the entire line (Real railroads HATE complex track arrangements), you quickly realize that reducing this railroad to modeled size does not require complex DC wiring...and therefore...never presents the problem that DCC was designed to solve.
Its much more than a diorama or Christmas tree loop.
Model Railroading isn't either about 3 different railroad mainlines looping over each other, criss crossing over each other, circa 1950...a complete wiring mess...or else its a loop of track around a Christmas tree. There is lots of it in between.
Counterpoint, many of those small railroads lines would still present opportunities where DCC might be advantageous to replicate them. Many modern branchlines/shortlines run with consisted diesels back to back, with one cab on each end (as seen on the SLGW in my photos above). With dummy locomotives not being produced anymore; somebody who wants to run a consisted set with modern equipment might find DCC simpler for that purpose. Or the ability to keep multiple trains on the track if modeling a rural branchline that has to send out a speeder or hi-railer ahead of the train before it comes through to check track conditions could also be useful as it creates a situation where two moving vehicles would be on the same "block" so to speak.
I have also seen some switching operations where two locomotives come in via consist, then split into different trains to work the same yard or industry from different angles. It is not super common but it is a real world practice that DCC would be a simple approach to take to replicate. Certainly though in many cases DC can be used; but there are arguments that might persaude people to chose one or the other. In my own case, dioramas and Christmas tree loops are the most appealing places for DC though since if I were to model that branchline/shortline you described, I would be building it with DCC (although I fully understand it would be equally functional in DC). Personal design preferences and my desire to have some operational flexibility come into play with that, although building such a layout in either DCC or DC cannot be seen as making a "wrong" choice.
Also the cost advantage of DC is a huge benefit, but it does restrict what type of "visitor locomotives" can come to the layout as DCC has taken up a large majority of the hobby. If social factors are considered for club, modular layout (particularly Free-Mo) and just operating at a friend's place DCC with its growing popularity does have a leg up over DC systems. The amount of home layouts I have visited that operate a DC system is a big fat zero in my own personal experience (although I guess the Lionel three rail layout with its AC system sort of counts as something more akin to traditional DC at least in how its controlled via a fixed throttle). I am not saying DC only layouts don't exist nor that there are any in my area, but if I as an operator wanted to bring my own locomotive to an ops session at these other layouts it would need to be DCC equipped to function.
But that is again a design choice. Functional layouts can be made with both systems, with real trade-offs and advantages for both. A solo modeler might not see the appeal of having guest locomotives or taking their equipment to somebody else's layout either. The cost factor of DCC is still a massive barrier to entry (although I will point out the cost barrier to all of model railroading right now is a huge barrier to entry regardless).My confusion though ultimately stems from what I feel is a persistent myth that DCC has some inherent difficulty to learn or master since it is "digital" has "programming" and is some new technology; which is not exactly true anymore. The only difficult thing with DCC is the process of installing decoders into locomotives not designed to take them, and I fully understand that is a legitimate concern since the process can be tedious and painstaking especially when DCC chipping a large fleet. That is a very valid reason to stick to DC in my opinion; however for most new modelers with many locomotives coming out of the factory with DCC and DC options there are less reasons not to consider DCC out the gate outside of the cost argument. DCC Ready locomotives offer a great compromise as well, being DC but ready for easy DCC installation of the owner decides to upgrade in the future (or even removing the DCC to convert back to DC if the owner wishes to). Believing DCC to be harder because it has "programming" feels myopic, and not giving it a fair shake since as others have already mentioned in this thread DCC programming is no more complex than using a television remote.
DoughlessI understood your original post to infer that the PC should have been the brains of DCC rather than the Command Station. That the technology should have developed around loading Train Operating Systems software into a PC...rather than developing a stand alone technology.
so instead of having a command station, boosters and controllers, you would have PC, boosters (track interface) and controllers (human interface)
a PC instead of a command station?
how are the terminal/controllers connected to the PC? (please don't suggest rs-232)
is the terminal/controller just a button box like the NCE terminals?
i thought the idea was all the smarts was in the PC that could be reprogrammed? as if a new protocol that replaces DCC could be implemented with a software update without replacing the decoders
how long does this discussion before the as yet undefined external components evolve into the systems we have today.
this has become a new debate, not about DC/DCC, about loco/layout control in one box.
systems architectures distribute intelligence and share data. components are easily upgradeable without needing to replace/disrupt the entire system
and DCC is not even a component in todays systems, it's simple a protocol.
... not long
OvermodYou could always build a custom PC that had DCC control on the motherboard, or on something in an expansion slot.
You could always build a custom PC that had DCC control on the motherboard, or on something in an expansion slot. Then the "PC" could control everything without need for middleware or additional specialized hardware. Strangely, although we have projects like Raildriver, there are no bespoke PCs with built-in compatibility to use with them... wonder why that market has never formally developed?
Of course you could do this faaaaaaaaaar more easily for DC, where you'd need a few PWM driver boards with comparatively large well-heatsinked devices, and a couple of those 64-switched-pair industrial boards they used to sell to go in an ISA or NuBus slot for experimentation and process control. Might need a few more complicated switches if you have a device that has to be reversed by switching polarity.
dehusman Overmod No one is saying a PC "wouldn't require additional hardware" to control functionality via DCC. Yes they are. PMR As in.... PM Railfan DHuseman) No, JMRI is not PC controlled DCC, atleast not in the sense Im talking about. You still have to buy todays DCC equipment. Pieces compared to one pc. He is suggesting that if you use a PC you don't need the other equipment. If he mis wrote, fine, but that's what he wrote and that's what we have to assume his statement was. If you use a PC you don't need the other parts.
Overmod No one is saying a PC "wouldn't require additional hardware" to control functionality via DCC.
Yes they are. PMR
As in....
PM Railfan DHuseman) No, JMRI is not PC controlled DCC, atleast not in the sense Im talking about. You still have to buy todays DCC equipment. Pieces compared to one pc.
He is suggesting that if you use a PC you don't need the other equipment. If he mis wrote, fine, but that's what he wrote and that's what we have to assume his statement was. If you use a PC you don't need the other parts.
Well, you could walk around with a wireless keyboard.....not a model railroading specific item. I would want the company that wrote the PC software to supply a smaller keyboard.
And before wireless, a teathered keyboard. Like a teathered unit before we had wireless DCC.
Its kinda gray as to what he was saying.
But there would still have to be something in the loco to unscramble the commands and separate them out from other commands. Not sure what kind of existing equipment could have been reduced to loco size back then.
I'm going down the rabbit hole of technology here....not my area. I'll stop now.
- Douglas
OvermodNo one is saying a PC "wouldn't require additional hardware" to control functionality via DCC.
PM RailfanDHuseman) No, JMRI is not PC controlled DCC, atleast not in the sense Im talking about. You still have to buy todays DCC equipment. Pieces compared to one pc.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Would never have considered the early DCC, way to expencive and troublsome but times change, though even recently some manufactures use other than 3 to start their engines in simple mode (keep forgetting to do that for an engine I have).
PM Railfan My appologies for not being savvy enough to put it out like this..... "Nobody is talking about sitting in front of a PC to do anything, PM Railfan is talking about the PC being the single multi function brain for the whole thing." Sheldon ..... but that is it defined to the point! Perfect! Cant figure out why i cant say it like that. Being that this is your post, I am glad you understood my point of view through my descriptions. I could have easily said by the time DCC came around I already had 100 or so DC locos and left it at the price/quantity thing. too dismissive and I know thats not the answer you were looking for. Today, in a DCC world with over 200 locos now, it doesnt matter what DCC looks like. Its monetarily out of the question (and thats just the decoder part of it!). Again, thats the easy answer. PMR PS: i wanted to post earlier (Yesterday), but some of us still work for a living. Better late than never i guess!
My appologies for not being savvy enough to put it out like this.....
"Nobody is talking about sitting in front of a PC to do anything, PM Railfan is talking about the PC being the single multi function brain for the whole thing."
Sheldon
..... but that is it defined to the point! Perfect! Cant figure out why i cant say it like that.
Being that this is your post, I am glad you understood my point of view through my descriptions. I could have easily said by the time DCC came around I already had 100 or so DC locos and left it at the price/quantity thing. too dismissive and I know thats not the answer you were looking for.
Today, in a DCC world with over 200 locos now, it doesnt matter what DCC looks like. Its monetarily out of the question (and thats just the decoder part of it!). Again, thats the easy answer.
PMR
PS: i wanted to post earlier (Yesterday), but some of us still work for a living. Better late than never i guess!
I understood your original post to infer that the PC should have been the brains of DCC rather than the Command Station. That the technology should have developed around loading Train Operating Systems software into a PC...rather than developing a stand alone technology.
As a comparison: Sort of in the Corporate Office world where you've got one big mainframe in an aircondiitoned back room, but users of that mainframe are out in the offices/cubicals performing independent decisions and calling up the CPU to perfrom the functions they are commanding.
I understood your original post to equate the PC with the mainframe, and the throttles (control unit) with the terminals.
That it would have been better if Digital Model Train Operating Systems took that form instead of the form it did. Because the PC is much more powerful and versatile and could be programmed to operate many trains in many ways, or even the entire layout if one chose to go that far into programming their operating system.
An operator could select a "Function Key", and instead of simply executing one command from it, the PC could execute a bunch of commands that were pre-programmed, and initiated by that one function key.
Apologies if I misunderstood your original concept.
Douglas said:
"The advantages have to be able to be used on the layout, or else there is no common sense reason to have it."
Exactly, well said.
true. but no one suggested what hardware was needed or what it did. the implication was that the because the PC is reprogrammable, that the system could evolve with just software enhancements
more words have been spent defending such a vague statement than simply making it more complete and less ambiguous
No one is saying a PC "wouldn't require additional hardware" to control functionality via DCC. The situation is comparable to industrial process control. The PC, probably running a higher-level OS, generates the appropriate streams of DCC control pulses, switched as appropriate, and when NMRA gets around to properly defining reverse information transmission, will read information from other devices and translate it into what its programs and applications 'understand'.
Or that a modern processor like an ARM, Arduino, or Raspberry Pi can't provide a great deal of the required functionality. Consider for an Arduino what 'shields' do.
An important distinction that started being blurred around the time of the Apple Manhattan Project, and was thoroughly being obfuscated by the time of the Microsoft attempt to demonstrate the browser was an integral and inseparable part of Windows 95, is that what the PC and its OS do are not at all necessarily related to the user interface (UI, the commands and response that are involved in communication between the 'computer system' and a human operator, nor to what used to be called the 'human-machine interface' or HMI, which is the specific hardware on which the UI runs, and which allow it to function as its 'human' desires. And of course all three of these are involved in, but aren't, the "interaction design" (IxD) which is in this context how the user runs their railroad -- what they program, what they automate, what they control by hand or voice, what integrates radio to battery locomotives with Lenz-style modulation over the track...
An example of this is JMRI. I was around in the era when people programmed in assembler and I appreciate what is going on in economical data management with these DCC CVs that are edited stepwise in multiples of 2, but no one in their right mind does the equivalent of peeking and poking at particular address locations in binary or hex to set configurations, let alone read data in binary or hex to check how something is set without using some sort of configuration listing or table. JMRI provides the equivalent of a hex editor, to show on one display what all the individual CVs are and facilitating changing them coherently -- in some cases it even facilitates making multiple changes together when some of the more cobbled-together aspects of a particular manufacturer's implementation of DCC requires that. But it ought to be possible to interact with the "system" by, say, expressing what needs to be done in plain language, and having the system then do the necessary explanation, education where needed, make and test the effect of changes, reverse out any mistakes without frying or bricking anything... etc.
PM Railfan "Nobody is talking about sitting in front of a PC to do anything, PM Railfan is talking about the PC being the single multi function brain for the whole thing." Sheldon ..... but that is it defined to the point! Perfect! Cant figure out why i cant say it like that.
still missing somesignificant elements such as
the answers to these questions suggest additional hardware.
is a single multi-function brain necessary, or simply the abilty to share information.
all of the above involves the sharing of information: the user sends information to a central controller which then sends it in a different format to the loco across the tracks using the DCC prototcol
the idea that the PC is infinitely programmable suggests that it would more easliy allow an evolution of DCC to something more modern. but this overlooks the need to replace the decoder hardware in the locos.
PM RailfanWOW! DCC really missed the mark there! Its my own sad fault for thinking this would have turned out correctly. I cant fathom, with the control and power available in a PC, why anyone would use anything else to control your model railroad.
i don't see how a the developers of DCC missed the mark back in the 80s when PCs were just coming out. and weren't PCs relatively expensive?
instead, the devlopers of DCC came out with affordable components: command station, boosters, controllers and decoders, allowing the system to sized for small and very large layouts
and each of those components has a brain, a relatively inexpensive microcontroller that shares information with the other components.
perhaps the mark is missed today with the development of LCC. the fact the LCC doesn't replace DCC emphasises their different purposes.
while any system used to control the layout (not locos) also requires electronics under the layout, that hardware can be part of a separate network of processors (i.e. brains) that support control, dispatching, waybill generation, scheduling, inventory, ... again by sharing information.
Paul,
I only have limited time or energy for this right now. So just a few points.
So maybe I was thinking 90's prices, 96 or 97 was the first time I looked closely at DCC.
The decoder situation to my 140 locomotives is to do a lot of work - OR - replace locomotives.
Turnout control products in DCC is an ever evolving affair - but many people use conventional solutions even though they use DCC to run the trains.
MOST people don't have CTC or signaling.
My comment about cost of turnout control is based on those two things. Again the DCC solutons are more expensive equipment - again.
I want all my throttles the same - I'm not a club, it is not management by committee. That's why I don't belong to any formal clubs anymore. When I did I was a worker bee on purpose, did not want to be in the management process.
REALLY - a few kill switches on yard tracks, easily done with contacts on switch machines to park additional trains on a one operator layout. For that someone should spend thousands of dollars?
DCC braking, computerized or not, more equipment and wiring - mine is free, and works by virture of where/how gaps between blocks are structured.
The Train Engineer throttle has an EMERGENCY brake button.
Yes, I own an old GRAVELY because I need more than a lawn mower too.
I have a 48" snow plow, 48" snow blower, leaf and yard vacuum system, lawn roller, lawn spreader, front mount dethatcher and in the day GRAVELY offered much more than that.
Sheldon, I know I'm very late to the party here with these replies, so my apologies for not responding in a more timely manner. It's been a busy week.(back from July 9),Please explain how DCC was "dramatically" more expensive 20 years ago (2003). Yes, it is slightly cheaper today if inflation is included, but dramatically so? Sure, in the mid-1990s, decoders cost $55-$60 each, but in 2003 they were less than $20 (sub-$20 decoders came out in 1997).You said, "I don't keep up with the progress of those feaures/products since I don't use DCC." And that's where we occasionally get into a debate because sometimes you make statements as if they are facts when they are not.For example, you said (in regards to having trains stop when passing a red signal), "For DCC you would have to write a software solution for a processor or PC that would interface with the DCC control signal, and it would have to know which loco to slow down so it would be like computerized block control, it would have to keep track of the address and location of every loco on the layout." None of this is actually true.There are multiple ways for DCC users to implement Braking Districts that do not involve processors, PCs, or computerized block control. You can read all about it here: https://dccwiki.com/Braking_District
Later, you said that "Yes, I mean Automatic Train Control as in the prototype system used starting in the 1920's by a number of railroads only on passenger trains." Not for nothing, but the NH used it on all steam freight trains that ran on the lines affected in the 1920s. The NH, in fact, had two different ATS systems; one on the Hartford Line and one on the Shore Line. And AFAIK, no steam-era ATS system closed the throttle, it just put the train into a full service brake application (not into Emergency as that would be dangerous). __________________________(after my first post),I am not "twisting" your statements into absolutes. You are stating things like, "...with switch motors, that wiring will be the same, more or less," and that's just not true. With DCC, it's one 6-conductor cable from the layout the dispatcher's desk. It could be one switch. It could be two dozen switches. It could 1,000 switches, and with DCC it will always just one 6-conductor cable. DC, even your advanced system, can't say that.With DCC, we could have 8 cabs. We could have 20 cabs. Heck, we could have 240 cabs, and no one has to add a so much as one more toggle or one inch of copper wire to do so. Yes, I know, your layout is designed for 8 and you don't want or need another cab, but in a "DCC vs. DC" debate, you must admit that cab number flexibility of DCC is an advantage.I am not trying to get you to switch to DCC; I am trying to both educate others and counter your DCC statements that I disagree with. Not to mention letting folks know that your DC layout is extremely complicated to design and build (but not to run on!). The fact that you have to keep explaining how it works is evidence enough of that. WRT the ProtoThrottle, you were the one complaining about the tactile feel of throttles and how you didn't want a smartphone interface (me neither). You wanted things you can feel. Well, the ProtoThrottle is the best at that. And I know all too well you have no interest in being the engineer...but what about the engineers you do have? You have a crew, right? They can't all be dispatchers. The Aristo throttle - I used a 1st generation Aristo throttle for a while on a switching job on a friend's layout. The hard plastic buttons were a pain in the thumb. It's just fast, slow, forward, reverse, stop, right? Those raised cast-in letters didn't help. There was no way to slow quickly (like with a knob), nor was there a "big step" button. You just had to press and hold the button, trying to get the darn thing to start (or slow). And considering the buttons barely depressed downwards, I couldn't really tell if it was working. So I squeezed harder to make sure...and achy thumb. I just really didn't like them.When I said "multi-train", I meant more than one train on the layout at the same time, but not necessarily running at the same time. If you only put one train on the layout, you only need one block and DC is very competitive. But the second you add another train, you need blocks...and DCC starts becoming more attractive because you don't need blocks for multiple trains. Blocks can be nice to have in DCC, sure, but they are optional.Just because you have no interest in a remote disapatcher doesn't invalidate the advantage that it is when comparing DCC vs. DC.Ah, Gravelys. I have much respect for that brand. A friend of mine had one for many decades. I would have considered getting one, but they only seem to make lawnmowers now. Really nice lawnmowers, but...I need a snowblower, too, and I've enjoyed using my loader with the bucket or the forks. I felt that I had to step up to the BX1880 sub-compact size because who even makes garden tractors any more? Even though it's the smallest Kubota, it feels huge compared to my old iron. Nice Gravely you've got there, I must say. A real beauty. As for why you didn't choose DCC, the one I don't get is "...replacing all my current locos..." Why would you do that? I've put decoders in 60-year old Athearns and 70-year old brass locos without any problems. The only reason to replace a current loco with a new one when switching to DCC is because the old one is a piece of junk, but that means it's a piece of junk on DC as well. So there's no reason to replace engines because one switches to DCC.
NOT my hill to die on.
I have an almost 17 year old son who actually likes to play with trains, but he wants all the lights possible and all the sound possible (without pushing extra buttons to turn on specific sounds). He wants the flashing beacons where appropriate, ground lights, ditch lights, Canadian red DPU marker lights, etc.
We tried to go all dcc, with a layout that was not designed for that, and once he started running the long heavy trains of today's modern but NOT free rolling freight cars (I've replaced ALL Rapido wheelsets and MOST Rapido trucks with Athearn free rolling trucks that actually do roll well, but still the Rapido cars are heavy in weight and it becomes really noticeable when you have a cut of them), we started having real problems.
I'm trying to get him to run more of the long heavy trains in plain dc, where it is easy to do so.
I have an open mind and will pursue any reasonably priced solution that actually works (or a solution whose benefits outweigh the costs). We are just trying to run trains.
xboxtravis7992 Serious question, why is this the hill people want to die on?Personally I do favor DCC systems, but I can consider some design situations where I would consider a DC set up as well (i.e. building a small diorama or setting up a Christmas tree loop). I also admit I am weird in that I enjoy the challenge of retrofitting DC locomotives with DCC chips, but that experience has given me insight into why many people with large DC collections have no desire to switch over.To be fair to both parties it is worth pointing out DC is not going the way of the dodo as many DC locomotives continue to be produced, and likewise DCC is not some magic newfangled black-box new technology as the NMRA DCC standards date back to the 1980's. Both of these are mature technology options and much more fleshed out than say a design choice which is actually radical such as remote controlled battery locomotives. If we consider this as a design question at its core, why must we write pages of diatrabe over something which objectively has no correct answer?
Serious question, why is this the hill people want to die on?Personally I do favor DCC systems, but I can consider some design situations where I would consider a DC set up as well (i.e. building a small diorama or setting up a Christmas tree loop). I also admit I am weird in that I enjoy the challenge of retrofitting DC locomotives with DCC chips, but that experience has given me insight into why many people with large DC collections have no desire to switch over.To be fair to both parties it is worth pointing out DC is not going the way of the dodo as many DC locomotives continue to be produced, and likewise DCC is not some magic newfangled black-box new technology as the NMRA DCC standards date back to the 1980's. Both of these are mature technology options and much more fleshed out than say a design choice which is actually radical such as remote controlled battery locomotives. If we consider this as a design question at its core, why must we write pages of diatrabe over something which objectively has no correct answer?
Travis, part of the problem is that DC is not just "one system".
Historically there have been many, many different approches to the idea of facilitating the control of multiple trains on a layout with DC control.
Some work very well, others not so much, some are good for specific situations, etc.
BUT, even in the early days of DCC, or maybe especially in the early days of DCC, a great many modelers had never seen many of the better DC control schemes in action.
AND, older large layouts were often controlled from "skybox" like control centers with fixed throttles, something few if any would be interested in today.
So with this lack of first hand experance with "better" DC control, there is still a lack of understanding of what can be done.
Do the best DC systems do everything DCC does - no, they never will.
BUT, not everybody needs or wants all those features.
And this becomes the crux of the issue, knowing enough about what you want, and what is possible, to choose what is best for your situation. Or at least knowing that you have worthwhile choices to even consider.
Just a few posts above yours, I explained how an operator on my DC layout does not have to push any buttons or throw any switches if the operating session includes a dispatcher on duty. Just control his locomtive - sounds like the prototype, sounds a lot like DCC operation?
Or, even without the dispatcher, you just push a few buttons as you walk around with your radio throttle - also sounds a lot like DCC operation.
But if you say DC to lots of people, their only image is a control panel full of toggle switches they have to continiously "flip" to move a couple trains around a layout.
If you go back to the 50's and 60's and read about some of the amazing control systems that were built long before anything like DCC was possible, you might be surprised at how smoothly and easily multiple trains could move around layouts even back then.
And in my case, CTC and signaling is a high priority - and the fact is DC or DCC, the work, wiring and cost of that is about the same. So I will save the DCC money and have signals instead.
And still have eight wireless throttles and easy seamless train operations - I just build it rather than buy it.
Overmod PRR8259 Today's freight cars that have rotating roller bearings are anything but free rolling. It is long past time for someone to extend the current discussion on truck physics and truck-tuning 'best practices' to cars with rotating endcaps. Here are a few initial thoughts for whoever does that. The ones I'm familiar with have coned axle ends, with a wirelike thin extension through the sideframe on which the little cap is pressed. Under ideal construction conditions, this should have the same guiding and location characteristics as the double-cone pointed-axle construction, with a slightly larger effective contact patch just inboard of where the wire end commences. This immediately implies that the truck-fram alignment and spacing would have be be highly precise, as there is less freedom for the wheelset to move side-to-side within the constraint of the larger-angle coned recess for accommodation. It also implies that slightly greater clearance at and through the sideframe for the 'wire end' needs to be provided, for the cones to do their work effectively, and that the caps be carried slightly outboard of the truck frames when pressed on -- perhaps with a guide tool similar to that for Bowser valve gear to get the spacing correct without trial and error fiddling. If you used a truck tuner to machine the active part of the cones in the sideframes, it might be necessary to fine-adjust the sideframe lateral spacing to the new profile. I am not sure a typical gauge for this would be inexpensive to make. Now, on the other hand, anyone over the age of about 50 will be familiar with the operating principle of Hot Wheels cars, which involves a Delrin/acetal bushing pressed into the wheel bearing on a thin wire axle. It would certainly follow that if the sideframes were tooled or machined to insert a thin-contact version of this type of bearing, if not indeed made of the appropriate material with the appropriate bearing section, you'd get at least comparable rolling resistance with the cones then providing only lateral compliance. (Yes, you could use watch-style hole jewels for this purpose, if you have the special knowledge or experience, access to materials and equipment, and weird predilection for overkill that go with that...) (I believe the counterpart for Delrin coned bearing surface bushings is already manufactured and sold, along with appropriate tools and instructions to cut older sideframes to install and align them.)
PRR8259 Today's freight cars that have rotating roller bearings are anything but free rolling.
It is long past time for someone to extend the current discussion on truck physics and truck-tuning 'best practices' to cars with rotating endcaps. Here are a few initial thoughts for whoever does that.
The ones I'm familiar with have coned axle ends, with a wirelike thin extension through the sideframe on which the little cap is pressed.
Under ideal construction conditions, this should have the same guiding and location characteristics as the double-cone pointed-axle construction, with a slightly larger effective contact patch just inboard of where the wire end commences. This immediately implies that the truck-fram alignment and spacing would have be be highly precise, as there is less freedom for the wheelset to move side-to-side within the constraint of the larger-angle coned recess for accommodation. It also implies that slightly greater clearance at and through the sideframe for the 'wire end' needs to be provided, for the cones to do their work effectively, and that the caps be carried slightly outboard of the truck frames when pressed on -- perhaps with a guide tool similar to that for Bowser valve gear to get the spacing correct without trial and error fiddling.
If you used a truck tuner to machine the active part of the cones in the sideframes, it might be necessary to fine-adjust the sideframe lateral spacing to the new profile. I am not sure a typical gauge for this would be inexpensive to make.
Now, on the other hand, anyone over the age of about 50 will be familiar with the operating principle of Hot Wheels cars, which involves a Delrin/acetal bushing pressed into the wheel bearing on a thin wire axle. It would certainly follow that if the sideframes were tooled or machined to insert a thin-contact version of this type of bearing, if not indeed made of the appropriate material with the appropriate bearing section, you'd get at least comparable rolling resistance with the cones then providing only lateral compliance. (Yes, you could use watch-style hole jewels for this purpose, if you have the special knowledge or experience, access to materials and equipment, and weird predilection for overkill that go with that...)
(I believe the counterpart for Delrin coned bearing surface bushings is already manufactured and sold, along with appropriate tools and instructions to cut older sideframes to install and align them.)
Wow, just another reason to be happy I don't model the modern era......
Reminds me of another discussion on this form that became rather heated when I presented my research on free rolling trucks and presented facts to show that the REBOXX wheelsets recommended for Kadee trucks were the incorrect length and in fact did not make those trucks roll more freely.
I was called lots of names once again.
But was ultimately vindicated when Sam from Kadee posted a reply confirming my statements and my findings. Not only my findings about the REBOXX wheelsets, but also my result of getting a more free rolling Kadee sprung truck by using Intermountain code 110 wheelsets.
To this day most of my 1000 plus freight cars ride on Kadee sprung metal trucks refitted with Intermountain code 110 wheelsets. Each journal treated with drop of Labell oil when installed. I do not use any code 88 wheelsets.
Yes, they are metal on metal and lightly oiled. The porous cast metal sideframes act much like an Oilite bushing holding the oil in place for a very long time.
The Intermountain wheelsets have the perfered NMRA RP small diameter axle point (.063") which does not bind in the journal cone as the sprung truck flexes to equalize. And additionaly creates a very small contact patch for less friction.
So for those who don't know, your pointy axles do not ride on the tip of the point. The top of the axle cone rides against the top of the journal cone. Based on NMRA RP's the journal cone is supposed to be 60 degrees and the axle cone 50 degrees, with recommened axle length of 1.035" and a journal spacing of 1.038". The recommended axle diameter out past the wheel is .063".
As for these modern cars, I have no ideas. I don't even have a pair of trucks from any brand with spinning bearing caps.....
So, to address the issue of cars rolling too easily for good switching/coupling, here is what I have found.
I don't use semi scale couplers, not even from Kadee, because they require more contact force to couple. This adds to the problem of the free rolling car rolling away rather than coupling.
To make this even worse, when you couple a semi scale coupler to an original head Kadee couple, it requires even more force.
Using Kadee (or other brands) of sprung metal trucks adds weight and mass where it matters most for both good tracking and easy coupling.
So, while nothing about this is a perfect science, my freight cars with Kadee sprung trucks refitted with Intermouintain code 110 wheelsets and equiped with original head Kadee couplers are both free rolling and easy coupling.
Performance trumps appearance.
Under-estimating power requirements is quite easy. Thanks to everyone who suggested not being cheap on feeders or placing them too far apart from each other. DCC does require more patience and understanding, but a thing of beauty when it works.
PRR8259To be clear, I had no problems operating in dcc until my son started trying to run 50 and 60 car HO freight trains with 3 locos. Then we started having real problems with intermittent stalling and restarting. I suspect issues with the entry level 2 amp dcc system
I used to be an alumni member of my college's model railroad club. Even though their layout wasn't very large, they constantly had problems with the circuit breaker going off because they didn't have enough power to run even one train with three engines. When I went with DCC I purposely over-built the layout. It's not huge - largely a shelf layout around three walls of a pretty large basement - but I have the main controller in the middle (CVP) and two "zonemaster" boosters, one on each end of the layout, each providing 7 amps of power.
PRR8259Today's freight cars that have rotating roller bearings are anything but free rolling.
Under ideal construction conditions, this should have the same guiding and location characteristics as the double-cone pointed-axle construction, with a slightly larger effective contact patch just inboard of where the wire end commences. This immediately implies that the truck-frame alignment and spacing would have be be highly precise, as there is less freedom for the wheelset to move side-to-side within the constraint of the larger-angle coned recess for accommodation. It also implies that slightly greater clearance at and through the sideframe for the 'wire end' needs to be provided, for the cones to do their work effectively, and that the caps be carried slightly outboard of the truck frames when pressed on -- perhaps with a guide tool similar to that for Bowser valve gear to get the spacing correct without trial and error fiddling.
0.3 amps with a full train and all lights and sound on, at full speed, is awesome even compared to old Kato engines. It is significantly less amperage than back in the day. They have many more lights than back in the day.
I even have a brand new BLI Paragon 4 SD40-2 that draws only 0.06 amps at idle with sound and lights on. That is way better than diesels from years ago. Athearn units can get down to 0.03 amps!
Today's freight cars that have rotating roller bearings are anything but free rolling.
rrebell A lot of DCC sound locos draw a bit more power and do not pull as well, to offset this modern rolling stock rolls freely and a lot are lighter, it is all trade offs.
A lot of DCC sound locos draw a bit more power and do not pull as well, to offset this modern rolling stock rolls freely and a lot are lighter, it is all trade offs.
Roll freely and intentionally lighter? Don't get me started......
Only started monitoring amperage when we began having problems and specifically when motors began failing. NCE controller reads out amps if you get the correct setting.
Have literally watched an engine go from running well (out of box perfectly for few hours) and only drawing 0.30 amps in dcc with a train behind it to drawing as much as 0.89 amps, running hot and intermittently, in as little as 20 minutes flat. At that point I know the motor is toast. The engine will still run, but not correctly and not at the same speed as its (exact match, same loco, same product run, different road number) brethren. If operated in plain dc, they also will not run correctly but surge (speed up and slow down without throttle setting changes).
It is not the Athearn units that are failing.
Most current run locos I have tested draw only 0.3 amps or less, at speed step 28 of 28, with a full train (say 20 cars) behind them, all lights and sound on. Below speed step 28, the current draw will decrease as you slow down, to as little as 0.03 to 0.06 amps at idle.
Will experiment more when buddy and train store owner locates his 5 amp system.
Thank you.
PRR8259 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.
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.
Again thank you. I have some DCC experiance, but not with NCE so I can't offer much. But I have always questioned the "extra power" some of these decoders can soak up. Seems like more features, more demanding sound systems, more lights and it all has to be "processed" after it get to the decoder.
Two amps does not seem like much given the nature of some of these locos.
On my DC system, each of my eight Aristo wireless throttles has its own 4.5 amp regulated power supply. I regularly run all powered ABBA lashups, or other four unit first generation lash ups like GP7's, and sometimes triple headed steam with no issues.
I have never bothered to measure the current draw, but they are all DC with no decoders and simple constant lighting circuits. BUT, some do not have the most modern motors.....
2 amps may simply not be enough.
I know the Kato track is a good product, I'm just not a sectional track fan. The number of rail joints being one concern.
Again, going back to age 10 when my father got me into this hobby, all my rail joints have been soldered - I learned to solder by age 11 or 12 and was taught to scratch build turnouts at the Severna Park club at age 15.
With the info you have provided, I do think you need more power.