Only one question, how do you speed match locos with DC?
Jack W.
The REAL question remains: Will there be a cure all system for multi train operation?
As I already stated DCC or DC is not the cure all answer for multi train operation.Both require fiddling to include programing,then addressing EACH locomotive or throwing toggle switches.Both have their pros and cons to include block wiring(aka power blocks on DCC layouts) on larger layouts..There must be a superior but,simpler way to operate multiple trains..And no I don't have the answer if I did I would design it,have it produce,package it and sell it..I fully believe both DC and DCC is outdated technology in todays high tech world.
This should not be yet another useless DCC/DC debate..We should look into another form of multiple train operation that is simpler to use then DC or DCC....
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Chip,
Speaking as a modeler who has returned after a 40-year lay off, I have to say that DCC makes the whole model railroading experience more rewarding for me. With DCC, my grandson and I can operate up to 4-trains on the BRVRR with just throttles. No blocks to worry about unless we are doing some switching.
While my current layout is not large at 4 x 10-feet, a couple of smaller DC predecessors were infinitely more difficult to operate more than a couple of trains at a time on.
I'm sure that you are right. There is a lot of room in the current standards for expansion. Expansion will come with time, but if everyone waits for the latest and greatest to fall into his or her lap, progress will be very slow. Compare DCC to computers. The technology changes so fast that your brand new computer is obsolete by the time you load it in your car to take it home. DCC technologies are similar; the change is just not as obvious.
If someone comes up with a significantly better idea, particularly something 'transparent' to existing technology, they could make a mint. In the mean time, the DCC manufacturers are advancing one-step-at-a-time. Witness the 'functions' battle going on in sound locomotives and DCC controllers.
The future looks bright for DCC IMHO.
Remember its your railroad
Allan
Track to the BRVRR Website: http://www.brvrr.com/
I believe we are up against a cost vs. limited-use wall, if you will. We are not a big enough market to justify the development of a "Blackberry" comparable unit. Think about it. These suckers are basically a Windows compatible mini PC with a camera and internet access built in, for the cost of a locomotive sound decoder.
Someday they may get around to a "Windows version", that plugs into your computer and you can program in plain english, maybe choose from different speed curves, etc., but we are light years away and I do not see much impetus to develop anything 'new' because they are selling what they have available now like hot cakes to some people. The current technology is soooooo primitive in comparison to the rest of the increasingly computerized world.
I agree there is something better 'down the road'. I refuse to change before that gets here. I doubt I will live to see it.
BRAKIE wrote: The REAL question remains: Will there be a cure all system for multi train operation? As I already stated DCC or DC is not the cure all answer for multi train operation.Both require fiddling to include programing,then addressing EACH locomotive or throwing toggle switches.Both have their pros and cons to include block wiring(aka power blocks on DCC layouts) on larger layouts..There must be a superior but,simpler way to operate multiple trains..And no I don't have the answer if I did I would design it,have it produce,package it and sell it..I fully believe both DC and DCC is outdated technology in todays high tech world. This should not be yet another useless DCC/DC debate..We should look into another form of multiple train operation that is simpler to use then DC or DCC....
Fair enough. Perhaps then what we should look at are the issues that limit both DC and DCC in multi-train operation, and then look at how these issues can be resolved. A good example of the limitations of both systems is the previously mentioned synchronization of engines. DC has no good way and the DCC approach is convoluted and clunky at best. (I had one Proto 2K A/B unit bought at the same time with the same engines in which the B unit was near twice as fast as the A unit. DCC programing could not resolve this issue. In fact, the pro it was ultimately sent to resolved the issue by making the B unit a dummy.)
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
The biggest problem I see with DCC is lack of robustness. If one user runs his locomotive into a switch and jams, the WHOLE transformer block gets shut down. That doesn't happen with DC. It's not much of a problem on small layouts, but on big ones it can be. The guy on the other end of the room has no idea why he is shut down. Everyone has to punch a bunch of buttons. Biggest advantage of DCC is the ability to run two engines at different speeds in the same block. The other problem is not all locomotives are available in DCC or convertible, and a few wont run on DC on top of DCC (if you have that). People with large collections of old and vintage and foreign and whatever locomotives are reluctant to convert. I don't think having to "program" an engine is any big deal. It's really easy if you have the instructions. Like takes 15 seconds and 3 or 4 button pushes on my system.
Ultimately, I think the solution is battery and wireless. Get the power out of the track entirely. You could even charge the batteries off of the track voltage if it is there. Extra batteries could be carried in the tender or auxilairy car. And it would run on ANYONE's power system, DC, DCC or XYZ. Park it on a siding and charge it. Could have rubber traction wheels to REALLY pull grades!
pilot wrote: The biggest problem I see with DCC is lack of robustness. If one user runs his locomotive into a switch and jams, the WHOLE transformer block gets shut down...
The biggest problem I see with DCC is lack of robustness. If one user runs his locomotive into a switch and jams, the WHOLE transformer block gets shut down...
Not true. When I get a short, only the one district experiencing the problem shuts down...the rest of my system continues to function merrrily...my locos still chugg and move, just not the one having the issues.
If you are interested, I can tell you how that happens.
..or, maybe I am not understanding you? You say there is a difference, apparently, between the two ways of operating in that in DC, nothing shuts down when a short takes place?
Or are you saying only a block shuts down? Well, see my initial comment above. No difference.
I'm another back-after-40-years guy, and I'm also a big fan of DCC. I find it particularly helpful on my small layout (5x12 feet) because a small layout is difficult to effectively block-wire, but with DCC I can run a bunch of trains without worrying about them crossing block boundries every 10 or 15 seconds.
There are already much more user-friendly options for doing complicated things with DCC, but they involve interfacing a computer to the DCC system. In all cases that I know of (feel free to correct me if I'm ignorant of some) it's necessary to buy an add-on interface unit to connect your DCC system to the computer, and then obtain some software. These should be relatively simple things, but right now they are pricey enough that you run into that "Should I buy a computer interface, or another locomotive?" question. Also, the interfaces are DCC-system specific, I think, so you can't use your laptop-and-Lenz combination on someone else's Digitrax layout.
As the cost of things like USB interfaces comes down, the DCC manufacturers should start including the interface and some rudimentary software packages with the basic DCC hardware, and it would be good for everyone involved if there were interface protocol standards so that they could all talk to each other, the same way that all decoders work on all systems. This would make it a lot easier for software developers to get into the act, since they wouldn't have to either deal with proprietary interfaces or choose between competing protocols.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I don't see the computer interface as being that expensive. What I see is that the manufacturers have not yet decided that it is worth the extra $5 to put a USB port in their base units. (Let the customer run down to RS for the cable.) They are still in cost competition mode and don't see the future of software development using their equipment.
But this chicken or egg dilemma will be crossed and one of the manufacturers will put the interface into their base unit then they all will. Then we will be able to add the power of the PC to the layout. Add intuitive mind reading and Brakie won't feel like an accountant.
>Not true. When I get a short, only the one district experiencing the problem shuts down...the >rest of my system continues to function merrrily...my locos still chugg and move, just not the >one having the issues.
>If you are interested, I can tell you how that happens.
Dont you need extra electronics between blocks to prevent this?
selectorpilot The biggest problem I see with DCC is lack of robustness. If one user runs his locomotive into a switch and jams, the WHOLE transformer block gets shut down... Not true. When I get a short, only the one district experiencing the problem shuts down...the rest of my system continues to function merrrily...my locos still chugg and move, just not the one having the issues. If you are interested, I can tell you how that happens. ..or, maybe I am not understanding you? You say there is a difference, apparently, between the two ways of operating in that in DC, nothing shuts down when a short takes place? Or are you saying only a block shuts down? Well, see my initial comment above. No difference.
pilot The biggest problem I see with DCC is lack of robustness. If one user runs his locomotive into a switch and jams, the WHOLE transformer block gets shut down...
One area where DC is superior is in short circuit detection. Diagnosing shorts in a DC system with blocks is much easier than DCC.
If I understand DCC, you split up larger layouts into electrical subsystems or districts. How many depends on the load and size of your layouts as well as individual preferences. My small layout can be broken down into 20 sections or blocks if you will. Do DCC layouts have 20 districts? Does each spur have the ability to be shutdown electrically?
If I have a short on my layout I can tell if it is on any single siding by flicking a switch. I can break down the mains into 5-foot sections. Some blocks are only the length of a single engine by the engine house. Each yard lead has a block. It is very easy for someone with limited skills to find a problem when the circuit is so easily broken down. Of course a person can climb under a DCC layout and break it down electrically but there is something to be said about the blocks being diagnostic aids.
Jim
Bruce Chubb did DCC-like things with DC using the C/MRI quite a long time ago. basically the idea consisted of a cab per block, and computer switchign of said cabs to your throttle. You had to imput the starting block of each train and then the system 'followed' you around the layout. Not allt hat easy to implement, and there is a lot of hardware involved, not to mention software. Moving the 'throttle' into the locomotive ala DCC is definitely a better way to go.
You hear a lot about how "DCC is complicated" I disagree strongly. You can now buy many different locos with the decoders (even with SOUND) alreasy in them - so forget 'complicated' installation. With the price of decoders falling, and the new ones able to operate just fine on DC, I think we will only be seeign more and more lcoos come with decoders already in them. The choice will not be "sound and dcc" vs "DC" but simply sound vs no sound, both versions capable of oeprating on DC or DCC with no changes.
The next step is to have the factory DCC locos come programmed witht he cab number insteadof address 03. Then, operation under DCC would be no more complictaed than DC. You could take the loco out of the package, set it on the track, and away you go. NO programming. People get scared when they see words like "electronic", "computer" and "programming" but there is no requirement for understanding any of that to use DCC. It's a black box, no need to really know what happens inside just to use it. How many people even have a clue anymore about how the car they drive every day works?
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Soo Line fan wrote:One area where DC is superior is in short circuit detection. Diagnosing shorts in a DC system with blocks is much easier than DCC.
A DCC layout that will have multiple users can be broken down into power blocks that would each have their own booster. These blocks, or the single user home layout can be broken down into power districts that are simply independently powered sections of track.
If you place a $1 light bulb in series between the track and the power, when that area shorts, the whole system does not go down, the load transfers to the light bulb and only that small section of track is shorted. Obviously, the light bulb is a good indication which section of track has been shorted. No switches to flip for detection. Sounds pretty easy to me.
SpaceMouse wrote: Soo Line fan wrote:One area where DC is superior is in short circuit detection. Diagnosing shorts in a DC system with blocks is much easier than DCC. A DCC layout that will have multiple users can be broken down into power blocks that would each have their own booster. These blocks, or the single user home layout can be broken down into power districts that are simply independently powered sections of track. If you place a $1 light bulb in series between the track and the power, when that area shorts, the whole system does not go down, the load transfers to the light bulb and only that small section of track is shorted. Obviously, the light bulb is a good indication which section of track has been shorted. No switches to flip for detection. Sounds pretty easy to me.
How many feet of track is in each power district? As I said above blocks are much shorter runs. Some are only a foot long. Any time you can break an electrical system down into many small pieces it is always easier to trouble shoot. Basic troubleshooting 101.
Just because a light comes on it does not show you where the short is, only that you have a short. Now what do you do?
How many districts would you place in a DCC 4x8? A 4x8 DC layout can be broken down into 10-20 blocks. Very easy to track down within a couple feet of rail without doing anything other than flicking a switch. If you had a short in a house or car and it was designed with only 1-4 fuses / breakers how long would it take to trace out the circuits?
Now lets use the same home/car and use 20-40 fuses /breakers. You zero in on the area much quicker.
Trust me, I trace 12v shorts for a living.
I"m using a DC only layout with several blocks and cabs and there are many things I don't like about it.
However DCC IMHO is cost prohibitive, this is more than likely a supply demand market / economics issue and DCC will become more cost effective but again IMHO it is too steep for me.
Regarding battery power, I don't think this is a good idea. There isn't a battery that can supply enough "juice" for a long session, powering the rails is the only way IMHO.
The failure in DCC is the requirement to convert the rails to AC. This was a design flaw from the get go. The technology should have been implemented more along the lines of bluetooth or wifi as these are tested and true and going through constant technology improvements. Why the NMRA felt the need to invent the wheel again IMHO was a mistake.
If DCC had been implemented like a TCP/IP network it would have made more sense. There wouldn't have been a requirement to convert to AC. We'd be using a technology that has global standards, etc etc. You could control your train from a bluetooth smartphone :)
I'm not in any position to say DCC under its current itteration will fail however it has been pourly designed and frankly it doesn't appear the folks that did design it involved non-hobby technologists.
DCC is WAY to freaking sensitive. When I hear about how folks are putting in leads every 3 feet or more, that is rediculus (sp). Compensation for dirty rails or poor design in wire, etc, again a mistake IMHO. If you have to put in leads like that, it should say something about the technology. I'd call a design like this one, crap. You don't hide problems by saturating the condition with non-required components. You do it right from design to implementation resulting in SOLID frameworks. (That said perhaps I'm un-enlightend on why folks put in leads every 3 feet /shurg).
All that said, I have not read every page of the DCC NMRA PDF's or every publication so while I've said what I've said, perhaps I'm way off base.
that's my 2 un-DCC-educated coppers
EDIT
Before the thread gets hijacked, I wanted to say, this thread is about DCC as a technology, correct? This isn't about DC / DCC blocks, or helping folks troubleshoot the solution.
I'd like folks to debate the point if DCC is the right direction, and/or if it is too late to change. Perhaps I've mis-understood Chips initial post. I had a few guys ninja post while I took the 3 hours to get this post done LOL (posting at work is not so easy :) )
Perhaps I'm not recalling my basic model train eletric book properly.
A block is a section of isolated track
A cab is a throttle to control that isolated track
Is that incorrect?
SpaceMouse wrote: A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC.
SpaceMouse wrote: I don't see the computer interface as being that expensive. What I see is that the manufacturers have not yet decided that it is worth the extra $5 to put a USB port in their base units. (Let the customer run down to RS for the cable.) They are still in cost competition mode and don't see the future of software development using their equipment. But this chicken or egg dilemma will be crossed and one of the manufacturers will put the interface into their base unit then they all will. Then we will be able to add the power of the PC to the layout. Add intuitive mind reading and Brakie won't feel like an accountant.
You can't buy a modern PC now that doesn't have a USB port already. If you do happen to find such a rare item, you can get 4 port USB adapters for around $20.
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/
Soo Line fan wrote:Actually his topic can encompass a broad area: SpaceMouse wrote: A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC. One part of DC that does not appeal to me is in my engine terminal. I have a lot of blocks to park locos in different areas and stalls. When I want to get to the engines in the rear I have to move the ones in front. Would jockeying them around be that much easier with DCC?Jim
Absolutely. I mentioned this to someone else on a similar thread. It isn't about just running multiple locomotives on a layout, with DC you have to account for all of them, whether they are moving or not. Drop 20 locomotives on a layout with DC, even if many are sitting on sidings and then try to keep straight which block switches you have to change to move the right locomotive. It can be done but it is challenging. A large yard can be worse. Or what happens when you park a string of locomotives together in a yard siding and want to peel the first one out for road service ?
Soo Line fan wrote:How many feet of track is in each power district? As I said above blocks are much shorter runs. Some are only a foot long. Any time you can break an electrical system down into many small pieces it is always easier to trouble shoot. Basic troubleshooting 101.
That is up to you. I settled on 8 feet for our club layout.
Usually it is just a loco on a turnout. Most of the time even with 20-30 operators there's only one loco on a turnout in a given power district.
On my 4 x 8 I didn't bother. I pretty much knew when and where a loco or car was sitting on a turnout. But you can have as many power districts as pieces of track if you are a mind.
Now lets use the same home/car and use 20-40 fuses /breakers. You zero in on the area much quicker. Trust me, I trace 12v shorts for a living. Jim
Are we talking about the same issue? We are talking about shorting out the track? It seems to me that only a couple things short out tracks: an engine sitting on a turnout or a guy that sets a coke on the track. I've heard of few melt-downs where buss lines became fused.
pilot wrote: >Not true. When I get a short, only the one district experiencing the problem shuts down...the >rest of my system continues to function merrrily...my locos still chugg and move, just not the >one having the issues.>If you are interested, I can tell you how that happens.Dont you need extra electronics between blocks to prevent this?
No, all you need, again no difference between the two systems, is gapped rails where you want blocks/districts, and you can solder a taillight bulb in series into the sub-bus for that district. You could call a taillight bulb extra electronics, but they are far cheaper than a switch.
In my case, I have exactly four bulbs, one per module in my square layout. If a bulb lights up behind me, I know to turn around and look for a problem on that module. Also, I can anticipate having the bulb repeat these indications several thousand times, just as they do in one's car. I don't think switches that we buy for $6 are going to withstand several thousand throws...some may, but they won't have the life, in general, to compete with the bulb.
Yes and no as I understand it. With DCC you can control the throttle of every engine independantly. So you could "charge" the engine in the back to move from A to B however it wouldn't remove the issue if you have your engines in dead ends and are looking to move the one from the back to the front. I'll attempt a textual image
Tx = Trains
A and B = destination points
..... = the Rails
A.......T1..T2..T3
If you want T3 "in front", you see the problem already, T1 and T2 must be moved.
A.......T1..T2..T3.......B
If you want T3 to exit via B then DCC can do this and T1 and T2 would never move.
In DC once you apply power to the rail ALL the T's will move, DCC allows each engine to have a 1 to 1 relationship with the throttle. Each train has it's own throttle of sorts.
Clear as mudd I'd bet
Just know each Tx will operate indpendant of other Tx's (or even have two Tx's operate in tandom, together, the rail is your oyster in a lot of ways regarding DCC)
Got a break at work so I'm on a bit of a posting spazim /evilgrin
jbinkley60 wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: I don't see the computer interface as being that expensive. What I see is that the manufacturers have not yet decided that it is worth the extra $5 to put a USB port in their base units. (Let the customer run down to RS for the cable.) They are still in cost competition mode and don't see the future of software development using their equipment. But this chicken or egg dilemma will be crossed and one of the manufacturers will put the interface into their base unit then they all will. Then we will be able to add the power of the PC to the layout. Add intuitive mind reading and Brakie won't feel like an accountant. You can't buy a modern PC now that doesn't have a USB port already. If you do happen to find such a rare item, you can get 4 port USB adapters for around $20.
I'm talking about DCC manufacturers putting USB ports in their base units.
"Any time you can break an electrical system down into many small pieces it is always easier to trouble shoot. Basic troubleshooting 101."
Basic Troubleshooting 102: The likelyhood of trouble in a circuit increases exponentially with the number of small pieces.
Frankly, I've never seen this particular argument (short recovery and troubleshooting) against DCC - probably because a short is a short, no matter if its DC or DCC. If you design your system correctly, you can limit the effects of a short and find the problem no matter the system.
But I must ask - which is easier, finding which of 200 blocks is causing a problem or which of 10 blocks?
Mike Tennent
a few comments
The people that put power drops every 3 or 6 feet on their DCC layout are the same people that would do the same on a DC layout. I had a block/cab DC layout with drops every 10 to 15 feet. When I converted to DCC it took all of 30 seconds to disconnect the DC and replace it with the new DCC system, I was running trains again a few minutes later. I think one of the biggest mistakes the DCC industry made trying to sell the technology was the "all you have to hook up is 2 wires" slogan. All that block wiring I did originally are now my power districts. The only additional work I had to do in this area was add the lightbulbs to each of those "old" blocks, now I know exactly which section of the llayout is affected when a short occurs.
One of the reasons I bought the NCE Procab system was that it already had a serial port built in (yeah, usb would have been better, have you tried to find serial cable lately?). Interfacing with my computer was also relatively simple and doing so has made the programing of locos much easier, (computer interfacing is the area that I think needs further development soonest).
I don't want to start this argument over again, (it has been discussed ad-nauseum), but DCC systems do not supply AC to the track, it is half-wave DC, (it just behaves similarly to ac).
As to the cost of starting up, yes it's not cheap, it costs about the same as a new computer, but then that's exactly what you're buying, have you priced an X-Box or any of the other computer gaming consoles lately?
But you can do it in steps. My MR buddy and I partnered up and split the costs. We decided on a system that could be expanded as the funds became available. We started out with the command station and 10 NCE decoders (@11.50 each), the next month we added 2 utility throttles and another 10 of those decoders. This gives a good start, later this year we'll get the RF base unit, followed by the conversion of the throttles to RF. And of course more decoders, (we have about 60 DC locos between us to convert), butnow we have 20 locos we can operate with and as time and money permits, we will start adding units with sound, etc.
In the long run DCC is no more expensive than DC, but admittedly the startup cost can be intimmidating if you try to do it all at once.
Well that's my 2cts so far.
Jay.
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
Jason,
The thread is right on track as far as I am concerned.
You have good point about TCP/IP and bluetooth. However, my first thought is that maybe it was intentional to keep the $$$ in the industry by creating a non-conforming standard.
MTennent wrote: But I must ask - which is easier, finding which of 200 blocks is causing a problem or which of 10 blocks?Mike Tennent
Finding the block is one thing. Now find the short and fix it.
selector wrote:Chip, I haven't gotten around to replying to your question. I would hope that we will eventually operate our train sets/layouts entirely with our PCs. Instead of the DCC systems that we buy currently, we'll get a software package in whatever format replaces CD-ROMs, and a little plug-in of some kind, a peripheral, much like the mini-data recording devices that many of us carry with us in a shirt pocket or on a chain around our neck from office to office. The trains will always have to have an onboard something-or-other, from a sound emiting device to a device that controls its electro-mechanicals. In other words, it is an analog item we are wanting to enjoy, so there will always have to be something to make the analog behave increasingly more realistically. At some point, though, I can't see any great progress beyond where we are now. We will still be stuck with something like scales, with all their inherent limitations, not the least of which will be the physics of reproducing acceptable sound. It will only be in virtual ways that we will enhance our experience, and that kind of makes me shudder. The more real the experience, the less aware one is of what is happening around the body that can spell danger. We'll need security systems of some kind to keep people safe from harm while they are in the spell, so to speak, of the holo-deck.
In a thread a while back, I suggested that a computer could track the location of an engine and through use of stereophnic sound regulation make the noise from a loco (or any ambient noises you wanted as well) appear to come from the appropriate spot on the layout.
I also thought I would get it to follow my brother around so that it played They're coming to take me away haha, very quitely inside his head when he was in the layout room.
Chip, Selector, both great points.
Chip, It would concern me though if the design was put forth with that being the intent. I'm not disagreeing with you as this is typical of corp. america however when a standards group is put in place, I'd like to think money isn't the primary agenda (pipe dream I know).
I would hope, err like to think NMRA is there to develop an extensible standards for MRR.
I think Selector hit it right, and I'd have the same concern. I can run my "Trainz" app at that point though and the entire aspect of "hands on" becomes moot. I would not look forward to the day that becomes reality, that would be a hobby killer in my mind.
As for the half-modulated DC pulse, fair enough, but I feel my point remains. There was no need to change it from straight up DC (or DC as it is on a non-DCC layout). All that is being done in DCC is/was possible with DC before NMRA was created. This goes to Chips point though and that thought gives me an uneasy feeling of what the NMRA is about.
I suspect DCC has a limited life time, this is my personal forecast and yet another reason I'm not doing it (yet). DCC as it is today is great, but should a new "standard" come out that actually meshs with technology and doesn't re-invent technology is a real long term "here to stay" direction.
I'm a "computer guy", every time I work on my layout and can't help but make the analogy of the transformer being my "hub", my rails being my "patch cables", and my trains as "computers". DCC in effect has accomplished this but it has been done in what I call a bubble (proprietary). Yet again a point to what Chip wrote.
Hmm, I wonder what would happen when my trains run Windows MR and a get a virus /chuckle
Re-rail Success :)
/ramble off
Just realized I mis-read some of Selectors post. To clarify I'd like to use a computer for things like turnout controls and throttle but I'm not sure how much of a hobby we'd have if all we did is watch a virtual train on our monitor instead of watching the "real thing" on your layout. Although I could see how loading up a "program" that walks through your layout running a pre-defined course, etc. I guess that would be pretty cool. But would the hobby turn into more of a "programing job" than MRR?
I think that DCC, in its current form, is probably here to stay. The interface between the command station and the trains is "fast enough", it is very tolerant of noise, and it has a pretty large installed base. On the other hand, there is certainly lots of room for improvement on the user interface side, which is going to keep evolving for years.
I think the DCC method of distributing power and signal is really pretty clever, one big benefit over DC is that it provides full power to the rails at all times, allowing for more potentially interesting things at the train end in terms of lighting, sound, etc. I think that a wirless interface to the trains would be nice, but the size requirements for this in the smaller scales are pretty challenging, and were even more challenging ten years ago. I also think the potential for interference (chicken wire scenery, motor noise, other reflectors around the layout) would have made for a frustrating experience.
If someone is starting out I submit that DCC is simpler and quicker to implement, simpler to operate, and not much more expensive that a DC system that provides comparable (or as close as reasonably possible) operation. In the case of an existing layout, there are lots of factors going into the decision to convert, and I don't think there is a one size fits all answer.
So there!
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
SpaceMouse wrote: Are we talking about the same issue? We are talking about shorting out the track? It seems to me that only a couple things short out tracks: an engine sitting on a turnout or a guy that sets a coke on the track. I've heard of few melt-downs where buss lines became fused.
I thought we were talking about the same thing. The wiring will never become "fused" or experience "melt-downs" as you call it if circuit protection is adequate. A short circuit occurs and then the breaker opens or your light goes on.
Lets assume you do have a buss-to-buss short. Certainly within the realm of possibility. How would you find it and fix it on a 4x8 with one district?
Soo Line fan wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Are we talking about the same issue? We are talking about shorting out the track? It seems to me that only a couple things short out tracks: an engine sitting on a turnout or a guy that sets a coke on the track. I've heard of few melt-downs where buss lines became fused. I thought we were talking about the same thing. The wiring will never become "fused" or experience "melt-downs" as you call it if circuit protection is adequate. A short circuit occurs and then the breaker opens or your light goes on. Lets assume you do have a buss-to-buss short. Certainly within the realm of possibility. How would you find it and fix it on a 4x8 with one district?Jim
What context are we talking here? Are we talking about construction or thinking a mouse might chew off some insulation? Construction is a matter looking at the last place you worked on providing you used good installation techniques. I admit that if a mouse chewed off my insulation on a 4 x 8 layout and the buss lines shorted, I'd spend some time scratching my head, but eventually I'd track down the problem even if I created power districts in the process.
But I don't see how either scenario would be different in DC as opposed to DCC.
jbinkley60 wrote: Soo Line fan wrote:Actually his topic can encompass a broad area: SpaceMouse wrote: A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC. One part of DC that does not appeal to me is in my engine terminal. I have a lot of blocks to park locos in different areas and stalls. When I want to get to the engines in the rear I have to move the ones in front. Would jockeying them around be that much easier with DCC?JimAbsolutely. I mentioned this to someone else on a similar thread. It isn't about just running multiple locomotives on a layout, with DC you have to account for all of them, whether they are moving or not. Drop 20 locomotives on a layout with DC, even if many are sitting on sidings and then try to keep straight which block switches you have to change to move the right locomotive. It can be done but it is challenging. A large yard can be worse. Or what happens when you park a string of locomotives together in a yard siding and want to peel the first one out for road service ?
NO! It is NOT easier because you have to address each locomotive as you move it..Its not easy on DC either because you got to find vacant blocks to park the moved engines ..In my experience and after being a hostler on a DCC layout I felt like a accountant by the time the session ended..The club layout was design for this type of operation,however, most home layout engine terminals are poorly design for DCC or DC operation which adds to the frustration.
SpaceMouse wrote: Soo Line fan wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Are we talking about the same issue? We are talking about shorting out the track? It seems to me that only a couple things short out tracks: an engine sitting on a turnout or a guy that sets a coke on the track. I've heard of few melt-downs where buss lines became fused. I thought we were talking about the same thing. The wiring will never become "fused" or experience "melt-downs" as you call it if circuit protection is adequate. A short circuit occurs and then the breaker opens or your light goes on. Lets assume you do have a buss-to-buss short. Certainly within the realm of possibility. How would you find it and fix it on a 4x8 with one district?JimWhat context are we talking here? Are we talking about construction or thinking a mouse might chew off some insulation? Construction is a matter looking at the last place you worked on providing you used good installation techniques. I admit that if a mouse chewed off my insulation on a 4 x 8 layout and the buss lines shorted, I'd spend some time scratching my head, but eventually I'd track down the problem even if I created power districts in the process. But I don't see how either scenario would be different in DC as opposed to DCC.
Both DC or DCC layouts can have wiring shorts..The idea behind blocks is to isolate or find a short..The DCC "power districts" was also design for that reason..A 4x8 layout doesn't need to be over blocked. 3-4 blocks/power districts will suffice for these small layouts.
SpaceMouse wrote: What context are we talking here? Are we talking about construction or thinking a mouse might chew off some insulation? Construction is a matter looking at the last place you worked on providing you used good installation techniques. I admit that if a mouse chewed off my insulation on a 4 x 8 layout and the buss lines shorted, I'd spend some time scratching my head, but eventually I'd track down the problem even if I created power districts in the process. But I don't see how either scenario would be different in DC as opposed to DCC.
Because while on your layout a person would have to search the entire layout buss (potentially) until he found the short. You, or anyone else would have no clue where to begin. On a DC layout they would only search the affected block- a much smaller physical area of the wiring to search.
I tried to give you some analogies to help you understand one of the few advantages I feel DC has over DCC.
Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout.
Soo Line fan wrote: I tried to give you some analogies to help you understand one of the few advantages I feel DC has over DCC. Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout.Jim
I get that smaller blocks make it easier to isolate a short. What I don't get is why turning off a section is better than a light coming on. You asked how many districts I would make on a 4 x 8 and I answered none, truthfully because that's what I did on my layout. That doesn't mean that you can't have power districts or that I should have done it the way I did. I answered as I did. It did not bite me either. Maybe I was lucky.
But I can make a power district every bit as small as your division and two poles on a switch is the same soldering as two poles on a light bulb.
"Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout."
Jim, you're comparing apples to onions. You seem to believe that no-one blocks DCC layouts, despite several folks having told you we do.
If a DCC layout has blocks, and I'd wager that most of them do, the process is identical.
SpaceMouse wrote: Soo Line fan wrote: I tried to give you some analogies to help you understand one of the few advantages I feel DC has over DCC. Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout.Jim I get that smaller blocks make it easier to isolate a short. What I don't get is why turning off a section is better than a light coming on. You asked how many districts I would make on a 4 x 8 and I answered none, truthfully because that's what I did on my layout. That doesn't mean that you can't have power districts or that I should have done it the way I did. I answered as I did. It did not bite me either. Maybe I was lucky. But I can make a power district every bit as small as your division and two poles on a switch is the same soldering as two poles on a light bulb.
You most certainly can, but then you loose some of the highly touted advantages of DCC-less wiring, less switches, simpler construction. Would anybody actually build a 4x8 with 10-20 power districts?
As I said I believe that DCC has the edge in many areas, but this is not one of them.
I can't agree that DCC only has an "edge" in some areas. It has it all over DC in the way you operate your trains. No proto engineer is reaching for a multitude of switches to get two locos to hook up for a MU. He notches and watches. In DCC, he notches and watches.
In DC, you simply cannot get two locomotives to hook up unless you interfere aprotypically.
MTennent wrote: "Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout." Jim, you're comparing apples to onions. You seem to believe that no-one blocks DCC layouts, despite several folks having told you we do.If a DCC layout has blocks, and I'd wager that most of them do, the process is identical. Mike Tennent
Mike I understand that. Are you saying you guys use as many blocks as we use?
Do you block every spur, or every individual yard track? Can you turn off every siding? If not the process is somewhat similar but not identical.
How many blocks would you use on a 4x8?
Soo Line fan wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Soo Line fan wrote: I tried to give you some analogies to help you understand one of the few advantages I feel DC has over DCC. Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout.Jim I get that smaller blocks make it easier to isolate a short. What I don't get is why turning off a section is better than a light coming on. You asked how many districts I would make on a 4 x 8 and I answered none, truthfully because that's what I did on my layout. That doesn't mean that you can't have power districts or that I should have done it the way I did. I answered as I did. It did not bite me either. Maybe I was lucky. But I can make a power district every bit as small as your division and two poles on a switch is the same soldering as two poles on a light bulb. You most certainly can, but then you loose some of the highly touted advantages of DCC-less wiring, less switches, simpler construction. Would anybody actually build a 4x8 with 10-20 power districts? As I said I believe that DCC has the edge in many areas, but this is not one of them.Jim
In my opinion this is turning a lemon into lemonade. In the rare instance that you have an unexplainabel short, the extra time, effort, and complexity that went into wiring a DC sytem can help you. You r question about whether anyone would put 10-20 powe rdistricts on a 4x8 just proves the point you are trying to argue against. In my opinion. Did I say that was just my opinion?
selector wrote: I can't agree that DCC only has an "edge" in some areas. It has it all over DC in the way you operate your trains. No proto engineer is reaching for a multitude of switches to get two locos to hook up for a MU. He notches and watches. In DCC, he notches and watches.In DC, you simply cannot get two locomotives to hook up unless you interfere aprotypically.
I am not referring to operations, clearly DCC has the advantage in the areas you referred to.
BRAKIE wrote: jbinkley60 wrote: Soo Line fan wrote:Actually his topic can encompass a broad area: SpaceMouse wrote: A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC. One part of DC that does not appeal to me is in my engine terminal. I have a lot of blocks to park locos in different areas and stalls. When I want to get to the engines in the rear I have to move the ones in front. Would jockeying them around be that much easier with DCC?JimAbsolutely. I mentioned this to someone else on a similar thread. It isn't about just running multiple locomotives on a layout, with DC you have to account for all of them, whether they are moving or not. Drop 20 locomotives on a layout with DC, even if many are sitting on sidings and then try to keep straight which block switches you have to change to move the right locomotive. It can be done but it is challenging. A large yard can be worse. Or what happens when you park a string of locomotives together in a yard siding and want to peel the first one out for road service ? NO! It is NOT easier because you have to address each locomotive as you move it..Its not easy on DC either because you got to find vacant blocks to park the moved engines ..In my experience and after being a hostler on a DCC layout I felt like a accountant by the time the session ended..The club layout was design for this type of operation,however, most home layout engine terminals are poorly design for DCC or DC operation which adds to the frustration.
Easier is relative to the person makin the judgement. I am not debating that it can be done in DC but recalling an address on a throttle or punching the 4 digit address in (I match mine to the numbers on the locomotive) is pretty simple. If the locomotive says 9255 I either punch it in or hit the recall button back to 9255, which I may have used two functions ago. I do agree that the design of the engine terminal is very important for ease of oepration with any throttle type.
From what I can see, the NCE handheld looks similar to one of our automotive scan tools.
What type of data is available on the screen of this unit? Can you see voltage or current data or just the address of the unit you are running? Do all the manufacturers display the same data parameters?
"Do you block every spur, or every individual yard track? Can you turn off every siding?"
Good Lord, why would I want to? That's why I switched to DCC.
Is your wiring so unreliable that you have to troubleshoot every track section often enough to justify that complexity?
Troubleshooting is not the reason for blocks, you know that as much as I. They are used in the areas I mentioned out of necessity to operate a DC layout with many engines on the layout.
I am pointing out that they can be used in a secondary purpose to electrically break up a DC layout into more parts than a DCC layout.
If you cannot understand then your an idiot.
Soo Line fan,There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned, and that's the ability in DCC to track down a short by ear.
My 25' x 50' home DCC layout is all one block. If I have a short and it's not obvious what it is (derailed equipment, etc.), then I listen for the distinctive high pitched "bzzt, bzzt, bzzt" noise that the short makes (from the breaker resetting), and I can track it down that way.
At my club, where we also run DCC, the layout is split into many blocks for short circuit protection. And I still have tracked down many a short by merely listening for that "bzzt"...and that's an advantage that DCC has over DC.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
On one hand I like DCC but there is a draw back that is happing to me. The more a DCC engine can do, the more there is to go wrong! This is my F3A and B.
http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j284/cudaken/?action=view¤t=IM000047.flv
Then there my BLI M1a, it shorts out when I hook the draw bar to the tender?
On the other hand my DC BB Athearns PK 2000's and 1000's are pretty straight foward when it comes to repairs.
A bank of MRC 9500's say 3 per line would do the same and easy to block. But all so lot more than a simple DCC system.
Only reason I went DCC is because I went steam. Bachmann GS-4 would only pull around 20 cars. Bought a BLI Class J 611 right before they became a close out and I was hooked on sound, that is why I went DCC.
Do I regreat it, yes and no. But a few months ago a great engine cost $70.00 (PK 2). Now I am looking at $250.00 engines. Of my 40 engine fleet I have spent $2500.00 $1140.00 has been for 4 BLI and F3A and B with sound?
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
You have what, 2 or 3 lines? 6 or 9 MRC 9500's plus banks of toggle switches, you think would be SIMPLER than DCC?
Sure you spent a lot on locos - but that's not the fault of DCC. ALl of my locos save 1 cost me $50 or less, plus another $15 or so to install a decoder and change the light bulbs. The one exception is my PCM T-1. And all those locos - not one is a BB type, they are all Stewart, P2K, or Atlas. Careful shopping.
The BLI tender shorting out - well that would short on DC or DCC< so not the fault of DCC there. The drawbar is plastic, dunno how that could cause a short. The cable on the other hand. It should only go in one way, but if it is flipped (shouldn;t be able to do that unless you busted the key on the socket) it would be a dead short because the outer two leads are the track power pickups from the loco back to the tender.
As mentioned before, the quest here is to work toward the ultimate multi-train system. The shortcomings of both DC and DCC as I see them.
Programming consists.
Addressing locomotives
In "modern" layouts, turnout control.
In my mind, the next jump in layout/track management will be computer-assisted locomotive management, turnout control and dispatching. These will use the current DCC interface with the trains. Touch screen would be nice.
How much easier would it be if staging yards were controlled by computer--especially if those areas are hidden or in another room?
One thing that has not yet been touched on during this discussion is the biggest reason that I have not switched to DCC. This hobby seems to attract alot of dim-witted people that don't always pay attention to what they are doing while operating trains. With a DC block system, when people are not paying attention and run through a block boundary, the locomotive either shuts off or if that block is being operated by another engineer, the train that has just crossed the boundary will do the same speed and same direction as the train already in that block. With the current DCC system there is no protection from this. There has to be some way of having a system that gives the freedom of multi-train operation with some protection from collisions.
When the club that I belong to went to DCC I debated wether to put DCC in a few of my locomotives. It's a very large club with multiple levels and hidden tracks. After several collisions by people not paying attention I have decided against converting anything of mine. They will never see any of my equipment up there again.
I like alot of the features of DCC but while I am having operating sessions with up to 4 trains running at a time, I like the peace of mind that I get knowing that as the dispatcher I have ultimate control over all 'my' trains on 'my' layout.
el-capitan
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
I have to admit that I have not heard of the idiot factor as a reason for not converting to DCC.
Although I would say that if you don't know where your trains are and what they are doing, you are trying to run too many. I suppose that when the computer interface becomes more widely accepted, we will see automated dispatching systems that will allow you to run your four trains or more with out collisions. Until then, we DCC operators will just have to pay attention.
el-capitan wrote: .. There has to be some way of having a system that gives the freedom of multi-train operation with some protection from collisions... el-capitan
.. There has to be some way of having a system that gives the freedom of multi-train operation with some protection from collisions...
I don't understand your premise. Please develop it further for this dimwit.
Space Mouse,You can already control staging yards by computer.
You can already control turnouts by computer.
You can already have a dispatcher running the operation by computer.
But if you're talking about a GUI screen for "loco management"...well, that's interesting. I'm wondering, however, how many people will want a flat screen on the side of their layout? Or how many people would want a PDA-like device for a throttle? Digitrax has offered a PDA throttle conversion for years, and I think I've only ever seen one in use. An improved PDA-like full color screen throttle, however, is an interesting concept. If everything was graphical, that would be a big leap...but I wonder at the cost of such a thing. If a DT400 is $180, what would a large full color LCD-screened throttle cost? I mean it would still have to have a throttle knob, and a direction button/toggle (the two most commonly used items). Yet it would have to be a pretty big screen to easily show all the items wanted without being too big. A conundrum, to be sure.
el-capitan,Well, that's realism for you. If the engineer misses a red signal, they tend to crash. On my club's old DC layout, we had some big crashes, too, especially when someone would turn on the wrong block or accidently over run a block and the slow train would suddenly leap forward if it didn't short. "Who's got my train?" was a familiar refrain at my old club.
You can set up an ATS (Automatic Train Stop) system on DCC with Digitrax' Transponding and signalling system, or so I understand. This, however, would require a lot of money and time to implement, not to mention a computer to run it all. IOW, not easy.
That being said, on such a large layout you describe, I would think that block detection and signalling is a must...and some training for the engineers.
selector wrote:I don't understand your premise. Please develop it further for this dimwit.
On any given piece of DC track, if there are 2 trains they will always run in the same direction at approximately the same speed. It is therefor impossible for a head-on collision to occur (unless both trains meet at a block boundary at the exact same time, very rare). With DCC this is not the case, head on collisions are very possible.
My point is this, I have a fairly long single track railroad with passing sidings. When there is a scheduled meet at one of these sidings the first train needs to stop and wait for the oncoming train to pull into the siding before continuing. If the engineer fails to stop for whatever reason (inexperience with the rules, not knowing the town names, not paying attention) on my DC layout he will hit the block boundary at the end of the siding and the train will stop, probably causing a short circuit. If my layout where DCC his train would continue on through the siding, into a tunnel where a head-on collision could happen with the oncoming train. This is one of the con's to DCC in "my" book.
By the way, I have no problem running trains without incident. I do however enjoy having fellow railroaders over to run my layout. Whenever you have 4 or more people working together there is going to be mis-communications. Remember, this is only one guy's oppinion who like nice, undented brass locomotives.
Anyway, in my opinion, if we truly want a robust digital control system for larger layouts, this would be addressed.
Exactly, Paul. Who in history didn't feel like a dimwit when he left a turnout thrown the wrong way and had to face a wreck-master? How else does one, whether guest or owner, learn how to operate a track plan?
If I were to come to a yard and be placed to work in switching operations, or if I were given a car spotting job somewhere off the main, I'd sure as heck take the time to think about it first, to get information, and to then do it cautiously. Still, there'd be mistakes, and I don't feel a model railroad should be exempt from human folly. Protected, sure, but not exempt.
Paul3 wrote: Space Mouse,You can already control staging yards by computer.You can already control turnouts by computer.You can already have a dispatcher running the operation by computer.But if you're talking about a GUI screen for "loco management"...well, that's interesting. I'm wondering, however, how many people will want a flat screen on the side of their layout? Or how many people would want a PDA-like device for a throttle? Digitrax has offered a PDA throttle conversion for years, and I think I've only ever seen one in use. An improved PDA-like full color screen throttle, however, is an interesting concept. If everything was graphical, that would be a big leap...but I wonder at the cost of such a thing. If a DT400 is $180, what would a large full color LCD-screened throttle cost? I mean it would still have to have a throttle knob, and a direction button/toggle (the two most commonly used items). Yet it would have to be a pretty big screen to easily show all the items wanted without being too big. A conundrum, to be sure.
Having not seen computer control of trains I figured they were in the rudimentary state. I have seen a computerized dispatch station (and a guy at my club runs trains from his PDA). But I envision a dispatching program that would allow for all levels of operation.
Suppose you have a layout you have set-up for multiple operators. The computer could handle everything up to and including uncoupling and building trains in a yard, while you take which-ever station you choose. On the other hand, you could have a dispatching systems where you decide what moves to make and operators make the moves--or the computer makes the moves.
Touch screen would be nice.
At any rate, if the DCC mfrs were to fully embrace computer assistance, we could see some advancements spurred on by competition.
"Who's got my train?" brings back memories. This sound seems to be going away as fast as dial tones on land line phones. We had the same problems on my clubs layout. Fortunately, short circuits and slow trains jumping forward weren't collisions. With DCC "Who's got my train?" has now been replaced with "Oh S***!" We did have a few smashed cabooses however when trains stopped with their tails in the last block and an uknowing engineer coming up from behind. This was rare however.
Occupancy detection would be great. I looked into this recently. Dallee electronics sells a unit for (I beleive) $30. I have 200' of main line and would like to have occupancy detection for every piece of 6' rail. Needing 34 occupany detectors it would cost me over $1000.00. For my model railroad club which has over 6000 ft of main line would cost $30,000. Not practical with today's options.
I remember reading an article in MR, perhaps a year or two ago, about a fellow who converted a very large DC home layout to DCC, and promptly discovered that he needed a signal system.
My DC layout's not large, only 5x10, but the first time I had a friend over to operate on it after I finished wiring it, he ran a locomotive into the rear of a stopped train. He was looking at the control panel at the time, searching for a switch to flip so he wouldn't have to stop his train.
As a matter of interest, what does DCC do as far as those features of real-life operation that are reflected only imperfectly by model railroading (i.e., braking, starting and stopping on hills)? My old MRC 9500s, for example, have pretty basic momentum and brake functionality, neither of which seem to really replicate the dynamics of a real train stop.
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
MidlandPacific wrote: I remember reading an article in MR, perhaps a year or two ago, about a fellow who converted a very large DC home layout to DCC, and promptly discovered that he needed a signal system. My DC layout's not large, only 5x10, but the first time I had a friend over to operate on it after I finished wiring it, he ran a locomotive into the rear of a stopped train. He was looking at the control panel at the time, searching for a switch to flip so he wouldn't have to stop his train.As a matter of interest, what does DCC do as far as those features of real-life operation that are reflected only imperfectly by model railroading (i.e., braking, starting and stopping on hills)? My old MRC 9500s, for example, have pretty basic momentum and brake functionality, neither of which seem to really replicate the dynamics of a real train stop.
The momentum settings on DCC are really pretty good. Starting and stopping are independently controlled. It makes for really cool sound as well as you can get and engine revving out from the start or emphasizing the squeal of the brakes as the engine cuts back.
SpaceMouse wrote: MidlandPacific wrote: I remember reading an article in MR, perhaps a year or two ago, about a fellow who converted a very large DC home layout to DCC, and promptly discovered that he needed a signal system. My DC layout's not large, only 5x10, but the first time I had a friend over to operate on it after I finished wiring it, he ran a locomotive into the rear of a stopped train. He was looking at the control panel at the time, searching for a switch to flip so he wouldn't have to stop his train.As a matter of interest, what does DCC do as far as those features of real-life operation that are reflected only imperfectly by model railroading (i.e., braking, starting and stopping on hills)? My old MRC 9500s, for example, have pretty basic momentum and brake functionality, neither of which seem to really replicate the dynamics of a real train stop. The momentum settings on DCC are really pretty good. Starting and stopping are independently controlled. It makes for really cool sound as well as you can get and engine revving out from the start or emphasizing the squeal of the brakes as the engine cuts back.
I'd add to that that as the user interface improves the command station could add even more interesting functionality in this sort of thing. To this point it is all (or at least almost all, there's probably an exception) in the decoder. And that's good. But I can imagine things that the command station could do, as well. I don't think we're anywhere near the end of seeing what DCC can do, but it will take time, possibly a lot of it.
el-capitan wrote:"Who's got my train?" brings back memories. This sound seems to be going away as fast as dial tones on land line phones. We had the same problems on my clubs layout. Fortunately, short circuits and slow trains jumping forward weren't collisions. With DCC "Who's got my train?" has now been replaced with "Oh S***!" We did have a few smashed cabooses however when trains stopped with their tails in the last block and an uknowing engineer coming up from behind. This was rare however. Occupancy detection would be great. I looked into this recently. Dallee electronics sells a unit for (I beleive) $30. I have 200' of main line and would like to have occupancy detection for every piece of 6' rail. Needing 34 occupany detectors it would cost me over $1000.00. For my model railroad club which has over 6000 ft of main line would cost $30,000. Not practical with today's options.
Why would you need occupancy detectors every 6 feet, unless you run some really short trains? You didn;t say what scale you or your club are in, but in HO, 6 feet is barely enough for a 12 car train.
Dallee products tend to be, IMO, overpriced. There are plenty of other block detectors that cost a lot less than $30 per block. Commercial and built up. And for a club environment, where someone surely knows a bit about electronics, there's DIY detectors for less than $5 per block if you buy parts in bulk from a real electronic supply (not Radio Shack).
"Troubleshooting is not the reason for blocks"
Jim,
I fully understood, I just wanted YOU to say it since you seemed to be making such a big deal about it being so advantageous. It's a very minor issue.
As I said earlier, I've never seen this argument against DCC. It sort of turns the whole wiring complexity thing on its head. More wires to come loose, more switches to malfunction, more things to go wrong - that's a GOOD thing.
It just struck me as a peculiar argument.
I think you're onto something - interface ease counts for a lot, particularly with first-time users - and if you can make it easy, why not make it fun? Or prototypical? I can imagine all sorts of possible approaches - given that there are programs for desktop computers that can simulate a locomotive, why not a program that can take what we know about, say, the operating characteristics of a D&SL Mike, juggle them, take the known operating qualities of my Samhongsa Sunset D&SL 2-8-2, and make the model respond differently to various combinations of reversing lever, throttle, and airbrake application?
One of the interesting aspects of a mathematical model is its ability to produce results that reflect reality - even inadvertent or unexpected results. I had the impression when I read that DCC was producing cornfield meets on large layouts that we had taken a giant step in that direction. When DCC can inadvertently produce a runaway on my 2% grade, we'll know it has arrived.
"interface ease counts for a lot, particularly with first-time users - and if you can make it easy, why not make it fun? "
Since DCC is "equal" at the decoder level, that is, Cv 29 is CV 29, there's really no reason why someone couldn't come up with a self-contained programing system (track, computer interface and software) that you could just set everything on screen using common english. Brand independent.
Point and click, pull down boxes for CVs and Functions, an interactive graphical interface to set speed curves, etc. Set an engine up and then move it to your layout and run it.
Perhaps the economics is holding it back. As someone said earlier, DCC is really still a small market and recovering costs and making a profit is a consideration. But I think the first manufacturer to do it will capture a lot of users.
I wonder whether the non-proprietary nature of DCC makes it harder to secure patents, and whether this might to some degree discourage innovation. Wasn't there some discussion awhile back about the DCS interface MTH is marketing? For some reason, I remember reading something about that being a bit more user-friendly.
Don't get me wrong - I love technical jargon. I'm just interested in railroad, electrical and construction jargon; all that CV stuff makes my eyes glaze over.
DCC vs DC? (forgetting the nitty gritty's') The basics:
DC (overall) is cheaper. DCC is more 'fun-ner'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC: (2 cabs - 2 men - 2 trains) Can you have more? sure - run in 'sections: Yard master; engine house; towns, CTC dispatcher panel;etc. How many guests do you need?
DCC: (Unlimited cabs @ 79 - $129 each) vs. All cabs can run entire layout. NOW, How many guests can you afford ?
DC ENGINES can run into another's control block ("who stole my train"?), DCC ENGINES can run into each other (crash) DC shorts on mialigned switches vs. DCC Derails (and shorts). Problem solution is Operator error.
MTennent wrote:"interface ease counts for a lot, particularly with first-time users - and if you can make it easy, why not make it fun? "Since DCC is "equal" at the decoder level, that is, Cv 29 is CV 29, there's really no reason why someone couldn't come up with a self-contained programing system (track, computer interface and software) that you could just set everything on screen using common english. Brand independent.Point and click, pull down boxes for CVs and Functions, an interactive graphical interface to set speed curves, etc. Set an engine up and then move it to your layout and run it. Perhaps the economics is holding it back. As someone said earlier, DCC is really still a small market and recovering costs and making a profit is a consideration. But I think the first manufacturer to do it will capture a lot of users.Mike Tennent
This already exists. And it's free. It's called DecoderPro and it's part of JMRI. http://jmri.sourceforge.net
Or if you prefer commercial software, RR&Company's TrainProgrammer does the same thing.
Randy,
You missed part of my point - JMRI appears to work through each proprietary system and requires additional interfaces for each.
I'm talking about a manufacturer independent, plug n play setup for any decoder equiped engine. It's own short programming track, USB interface, etc. Doesn't matter if you use Digitrax, Lentz, Atlas, MRC, etc.
Take it home, load the software, plug it in and set everything.
Not sure if its practical - just brain stormin'
Mike T
MTennent wrote:Randy,You missed part of my point - JMRI appears to work through each proprietary system and requires additional interfaces for each.I'm talking about a manufacturer independent, plug n play setup for any decoder equiped engine. It's own short programming track, USB interface, etc. Doesn't matter if you use Digitrax, Lentz, Atlas, MRC, etc.Take it home, load the software, plug it in and set everything. Not sure if its practical - just brain stormin'Mike T
Well that would be the SPROG. Which uses JMRI as its controlling software. A standalone system independent programming device. OK so it doesn't come with a piece of track glued to it to be used as the program track - but if they did that they'd have to make a dozen variations to cover all the scale/gauge combinations. Also, there is an add-on bit for the Locobuffer-USB interface that will allow it to be a standalone programmer. And the Digitrax PR2 can be used with JMRI to program anything, not just the Digitrax sound decoders.
I like the look of the JMRI and the SPROG sounded promising until....
I got to the set up part. A chart with values that you need to figure out a binary number to enter somewhere. Sigh.
I know binary. I've use it in programming for computers. But it's the last thing in the world most model railroaders should have to deal with.
Maybe this is what's holding this area of DCC back - the computer geek aura. I'm trying to figure out a comparison. It's almost like a TV manufacturer offering a TV that has a remote, but you have to program each channel into a specific memory location. And you have to it in binary. And, oh yeah, you have to buy another interface to use the remote and the software to do it is free but you have to download it from someone else and it's written in JAVA.
Aaaarrgghhh!
I think where I'm going with this is why should a DCC user have to go through all that? Why don't the makers offer it with the purchase? If I buy a router, printer, or other computer peripheral, I sure expect it to be plug n play with a CD and any needed software included. Why shouldn't DCC be that way?
I think Chip is right when he says the first ones to wake up and put a USB interface on one and the software to go with it will start it all in motion.
Mike T.
Space Mouse,
I got tired of waiting for a truly open system architecture (I guess that DCC manufacturers need to make money somehow), so I decided over 15 years ago on ZIMO. I do all of what you mentioned since then. My computer is running the layout. Now before everyone writes back that this is the death of model railroading because you want to be the engineer and not just stand on the side watching trains go by, read on.I can take control of one or more trains operated by the computer at any time by simply pressing a dedicated key on the throttle. No need to run to the PC first and let it know. It will continue to operate all other trains but the loco(s) that I aquired with this key will ignore all computer commands as long as the key remains active. Pressing the same key again hands the train back to the computer. This allows me to run my complete layout (48 trains) fully automatic (for visitors for example), run trains manually with the computer acting as an ETCS (collision avoidance, stopping trains automatically if I overrun a red signal) or run them in complete manual mode as mentioned above, crashing trains if that's what I want to do ;-)
ZIMO's "location dependent function control" turns functions on/off at specific sections on the layout automatically. This could be your lights, sounds (e.g. whistle) and so on. But you could also for example have a train enter your yard. After it comes to a full stop the locomotive automatically backs up a little to unload the couplers, uncouples the train and moves away from the train. This BTW is not a computer function but a ZIMO loco decoder function and works also without a PC by simply pressing the function key for the uncouple function.
For this year ZIMO is planning to introduce touch screen control, "ultra-mobile" PC technology based on the new Samsung Q1 with any number of virtual cabs, programming and control of functions without CV or function numbers. Bidirectional communication is being phased in rightnow.I'm just in the process of translating the 2007 ZIMO product flyer and it will be on our web sitesoon.
Regards,
ArtZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net
Sounds Cool Art,
Keep us posted as to when that brochure comes online.
el-capitan wrote:If the engineer fails to stop for whatever reason (inexperience with the rules, not knowing the town names, not paying attention) on my DC layout he will hit the block boundary at the end of the siding and the train will stop, probably causing a short circuit. If my layout where DCC his train would continue on through the siding, into a tunnel where a head-on collision could happen with the oncoming train. This is one of the con's to DCC in "my" book
If the engineer fails to stop for whatever reason (inexperience with the rules, not knowing the town names, not paying attention) on my DC layout he will hit the block boundary at the end of the siding and the train will stop, probably causing a short circuit. If my layout where DCC his train would continue on through the siding, into a tunnel where a head-on collision could happen with the oncoming train. This is one of the con's to DCC in "my" book
MTennent wrote:Randy, I like the look of the JMRI and the SPROG sounded promising until....I got to the set up part. A chart with values that you need to figure out a binary number to enter somewhere. Sigh. I know binary. I've use it in programming for computers. But it's the last thing in the world most model railroaders should have to deal with. Maybe this is what's holding this area of DCC back - the computer geek aura. I'm trying to figure out a comparison. It's almost like a TV manufacturer offering a TV that has a remote, but you have to program each channel into a specific memory location. And you have to it in binary. And, oh yeah, you have to buy another interface to use the remote and the software to do it is free but you have to download it from someone else and it's written in JAVA.Aaaarrgghhh!I think where I'm going with this is why should a DCC user have to go through all that? Why don't the makers offer it with the purchase? If I buy a router, printer, or other computer peripheral, I sure expect it to be plug n play with a CD and any needed software included. Why shouldn't DCC be that way?I think Chip is right when he says the first ones to wake up and put a USB interface on one and the software to go with it will start it all in motion.Mike T.
Since the latest SPROG documentation on the SPROG site no longer mentions having to do this one-time setup command, I'm wondering if it is still necessary. The settings may have been integrated into JMRI so that it sends the proper command.
At any rate, there apparantly has been no clamor to resolve this potential 'issue' since Andy (the developer of the SPROG) or any number of people could write a simple config program that performs that function in plain English. Which is also why I wonder if they perhaps haven't integrated it in JMRI now.
marknewton wrote: el-capitan wrote: If the engineer fails to stop for whatever reason (inexperience with the rules, not knowing the town names, not paying attention) on my DC layout he will hit the block boundary at the end of the siding and the train will stop, probably causing a short circuit. If my layout where DCC his train would continue on through the siding, into a tunnel where a head-on collision could happen with the oncoming train. This is one of the con's to DCC in "my" bookIn my book this has nothing whatsoever to do with DCC, it's a problem with the operators. Whether it's a DC or DCC layout, bad driving is bad driving...Mark.
el-capitan wrote: If the engineer fails to stop for whatever reason (inexperience with the rules, not knowing the town names, not paying attention) on my DC layout he will hit the block boundary at the end of the siding and the train will stop, probably causing a short circuit. If my layout where DCC his train would continue on through the siding, into a tunnel where a head-on collision could happen with the oncoming train. This is one of the con's to DCC in "my" book
Absolutely! While theres been 1 or 2 freak DC head ons at the club we have had more then our share of side swipes due to inattentive train handling and ignoring red blocks.
BRAKIE wrote: marknewton wrote: el-capitan wrote: If the engineer fails to stop for whatever reason (inexperience with the rules, not knowing the town names, not paying attention) on my DC layout he will hit the block boundary at the end of the siding and the train will stop, probably causing a short circuit. If my layout where DCC his train would continue on through the siding, into a tunnel where a head-on collision could happen with the oncoming train. This is one of the con's to DCC in "my" bookIn my book this has nothing whatsoever to do with DCC, it's a problem with the operators. Whether it's a DC or DCC layout, bad driving is bad driving...Mark. Absolutely! While theres been 1 or 2 freak DC head ons at the club we have had more then our share of side swipes due to inattentive train handling and ignoring red blocks.
Sigh!
At our club the club president likes to start his train running then get into conversations often going 30 minutes without looking at his train. The kids are speed demons and often rear end slower trains and derailed trains. Switches are often left set to sidings and spurs.
There's a lot of wrecks at our club.
"Since the latest SPROG documentation on the SPROG site no longer mentions having to do this one-time setup command, I'm wondering if it is still necessary"
I'm looking at this:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/hardware/SPROG.html
Are we looking at different docs?
Yes I was looking at the SPROG home page http://www.sprog-dcc.co.uk/ which has some step by step instructions for connectign the SPROG and don't mention needing to manually send the config information. It just says to download the Java runtimes from Sun, install JMRI, and plug in the SPROG.
I kind of agree with you.
However, whatever technology comes down the pick next MUST be downwardly compatible with the current DCC systems as some many people already are running DCC systems.
The market place with decide which technology is best or most accepted.
I agree. Bad train driving is bad train driving. However, on a DC layout engineers are confined to operate on the section of layout that a dispatcher sets for them. Even my home layout travels through 3 seperate rooms. As the dispatcher I cannot see where every train is but since I have DC I know that train 2 is either operating on one of the blocks that I set for him or he is at a dead stop at a block boundary (I usually keep a block shut off in between trains to avoid rear-ending the train in front.) I do not have this type of control over my layout with DCC.
I run 2 rail Oscale. My heaviest steam locomotive is over 12 pounds. I've know people to own steam engines that weigh over 20 lbs. All of my cars weigh close to or over a pound each. When 2 Oscale trains hit head on it's not like 2 matchbox cars bumping into one another. a 40 car train can weigh over 50 lbs. That's alot of mass to be stopping all at once. I tend to want to avoid this.
The title of this forum is "The quest for the ultimate Multi-train system". not "101 reasons why DCC is perfect". I love what DCC has done for the hobby. I would probably have it myself if I didn't need to make the choice between spending $1000 to put decoders in all of my locomotives or buy another brass steam locomotive. I just want more. I want to be able to dispatch from my laptop on wi-fi from my backyard. There would be a schematic on my screen of my entire layout. If I click on a turnout, it switches. I would be able to see all of my trains run around on the schematic and know exactly where they are. Maybe GPS locators in each engine and caboose. Come on, I can look on the internet to pinpoint exactly what seat my kid is sitting in at the movie theater because he has a gps cell phone, why can't that technology be used in railroading.
Finally, I want one, just one, DCC guy to admit that accidents are more likely on a DCC layout over a DC layout. Even if its only.01% greater, admit that it is more likely. Because I have yet to hear someone with DCC say that.
el-capitan wrote:Finally, I want one, just one, DCC guy to admit that accidents are more likely on a DCC layout over a DC layout. Even if its only.01% greater, admit that it is more likely. Because I have yet to hear someone with DCC say that.
Honestly, don't know. The only layout I've run both DC and DCC was mine and only ran one loco at time unless they were on separate loops while DCC. Had plenty of mishaps when both my son and I ran on DCC.
el-capitan wrote: BRAKIE wrote: marknewton wrote: el-capitan wrote: If the engineer fails to stop for whatever reason (inexperience with the rules, not knowing the town names, not paying attention) on my DC layout he will hit the block boundary at the end of the siding and the train will stop, probably causing a short circuit. If my layout where DCC his train would continue on through the siding, into a tunnel where a head-on collision could happen with the oncoming train. This is one of the con's to DCC in "my" bookIn my book this has nothing whatsoever to do with DCC, it's a problem with the operators. Whether it's a DC or DCC layout, bad driving is bad driving...Mark. Absolutely! While theres been 1 or 2 freak DC head ons at the club we have had more then our share of side swipes due to inattentive train handling and ignoring red blocks. I agree. Bad train driving is bad train driving. However, on a DC layout engineers are confined to operate on the section of layout that a dispatcher sets for them. Even my home layout travels through 3 seperate rooms. As the dispatcher I cannot see where every train is but since I have DC I know that train 2 is either operating on one of the blocks that I set for him or he is at a dead stop at a block boundary (I usually keep a block shut off in between trains to avoid rear-ending the train in front.) I do not have this type of control over my layout with DCC.I run 2 rail Oscale. My heaviest steam locomotive is over 12 pounds. I've know people to own steam engines that weigh over 20 lbs. All of my cars weigh close to or over a pound each. When 2 Oscale trains hit head on it's not like 2 matchbox cars bumping into one another. a 40 car train can weigh over 50 lbs. That's alot of mass to be stopping all at once. I tend to want to avoid this.The title of this forum is "The quest for the ultimate Multi-train system". not "101 reasons why DCC is perfect". I love what DCC has done for the hobby. I would probably have it myself if I didn't need to make the choice between spending $1000 to put decoders in all of my locomotives or buy another brass steam locomotive. I just want more. I want to be able to dispatch from my laptop on wi-fi from my backyard. There would be a schematic on my screen of my entire layout. If I click on a turnout, it switches. I would be able to see all of my trains run around on the schematic and know exactly where they are. Maybe GPS locators in each engine and caboose. Come on, I can look on the internet to pinpoint exactly what seat my kid is sitting in at the movie theater because he has a gps cell phone, why can't that technology be used in railroading.Finally, I want one, just one, DCC guy to admit that accidents are more likely on a DCC layout over a DC layout. Even if its only.01% greater, admit that it is more likely. Because I have yet to hear someone with DCC say that.
Not picking on you as an individual; however, most of this thread is pure BS. You are assuming that block control is only used on DC. It can be used equally well on DCC if you want to. Block control is not related to DC or DCC. It is a means of controlling track power. The actual running of trains is determined by the operation of the DC power pak or the DCC throttle.
I have used DC and now have DCC and will never go back.
Alan_B wrote:[Not picking on you as an individual; however, most of this thread is pure BS. You are assuming that block control is only used on DC. It can be used equally well on DCC if you want to. Block control is not related to DC or DCC. It is a means of controlling track power. The actual running of trains is determined by the operation of the DC power pak or the DCC throttle. I have used DC and now have DCC and will never go back.
Why do I get so much static anytime I point out that DCC is not perfect?
I know what DC is and I know what DCC is. But I have never heard of anyone setting up blocks for separate cabs on a DCC layout. Many people with larger DCC layouts have and should be able to break down large layouts into smaller areas by installing isolation switches to make it easier to find shorts. Other than that every DCC layout I have ever been to has always ran a buss wire the entire length of rail for power.
Are you suggesting I replace my four DC throttles with four separate boosters and run four independant DCC cabs? I wouldn't see the point (aside from better sound and lighting features) of making this huge investment in DCC. Do you know any one who has ever done this? Please explain.
The best two things DCC has going for it are multitrain operation and simple wiring. If you take those things away much of the allure of DCC is lost.
And please keep in mind, the title of this thread is "The quest for the ultimate Multi-train system". I am only trying to point out that DC with block control is not perfect and DCC is likewise not perfect and what I would want in the ultimate system. DCC has done more to help this hobby since electricity was standardized. I know how great it is. I want it better.
Also, I'm not picking on you as an individual, but you are yet another in a long line of DCC faithfuls not able to admit that there is a higher risk of collisions on (non-block) DCC layouts.
el-capitan wrote: Alan_B wrote:[Not picking on you as an individual; however, most of this thread is pure BS. You are assuming that block control is only used on DC. It can be used equally well on DCC if you want to. Block control is not related to DC or DCC. It is a means of controlling track power. The actual running of trains is determined by the operation of the DC power pak or the DCC throttle. I have used DC and now have DCC and will never go back. Why do I get so much static anytime I point out that DCC is not perfect? I know what DC is and I know what DCC is. But I have never heard of anyone setting up blocks for separate cabs on a DCC layout. Many people with larger DCC layouts have and should be able to break down large layouts into smaller areas by installing isolation switches to make it easier to find shorts. Other than that every DCC layout I have ever been to has always ran a buss wire the entire length of rail for power.Are you suggesting I replace my four DC throttles with four separate boosters and run four independant DCC cabs? I wouldn't see the point (aside from better sound and lighting features) of making this huge investment in DCC. Do you know any one who has ever done this? Please explain.The best two things DCC has going for it are multitrain operation and simple wiring. If you take those things away much of the allure of DCC is lost.And please keep in mind, the title of this thread is "The quest for the ultimate Multi-train system". I am only trying to point out that DC with block control is not perfect and DCC is likewise not perfect and what I would want in the ultimate system. DCC has done more to help this hobby since electricity was standardized. I know how great it is. I want it better. Also, I'm not picking on you as an individual, but you are yet another in a long line of DCC faithfuls not able to admit that there is a higher risk of collisions on (non-block) DCC layouts.
Individual block control, with more than one cab, is the only way to run multiple trains with DC (unless one throttle setting works for more than one engine). Independent control, under DC, can only be obtained with multiple cabs (and therefore multiple blocks). None of this is necessary with DCC.
A good number of DCC run layouts have multiple blocks (sometimes called power districts). My layout has 8 power districts all run from the same power source and all accessible from multiple throttles and all isolated from each other. Only one of them has a switch (I use the switch to switch from operating track to programming track to OFF). I use tail light bulbs as isolators and current limiters. I chose not to install switches for each block. The light bulb is a visual indicator of shorts (opens are obvious from a stopped train with no throttle control). I could use as many districts as I want and could put switches in each.
Unlike DC, I can operate several trains from one throttle, each with different speeds/direction: OR I can use several throttles for several trains.
What you "normally" see is that people realize that the complicated wiring required for DC multi train operation, is not necessary (meaning that it is optional) for DCC. It could be used for DCC; therefore the issue in BS when comparing systems, unless you understand that it is required for DC and optional for DCC.
The beauty of DCC is the simplified wiring that is actually required and the lack of switches needed to run trains. You tend to spend time with the enjoyment of running trains and not with the necessary DC task of operating switches just to keep trains running. Neither system will prevent operator induced errors or problems.
If you want control; you can have it with either system. If you want simplicity and just the enjoyment of running trains, DCC is the best choice.
Alan
I understand the difference in how they work. DCC is much better in most respects. But a power district is much different from a block in how they function. Any engineer running DCC can run his train from one power district to another without the dispatcher knowing. On a block system an engineer can only operate on tracks designated by the dispatcher. DCC takes this control away from the dispatcher (me). I probably have some kind of god complex and I definately have control issues. I get these things by owning expensive equipment that I don't want to see get damaged because of a careless operator.
Please explain to me how I can accomplish these three things simultaneously:
1. Have good multitrain operating system.
2. Be in control of my entire layout from one control panel with 4 operators independantly running trains.
3. run a minimum amount of wire
4. Spend a reasonable amount of money to do this. Remember, if the price goes over $1,200 I will just by a new Santa Fe Mountain from Sunset.
el-capitan wrote: Alan I understand the difference in how they work. DCC is much better in most respects. But a power district is much different from a block in how they function. Any engineer running DCC can run his train from one power district to another without the dispatcher knowing. On a block system an engineer can only operate on tracks designated by the dispatcher. DCC takes this control away from the dispatcher (me). I probably have some kind of god complex and I definately have control issues. I get these things by owning expensive equipment that I don't want to see get damaged because of a careless operator.Please explain to me how I can accomplish these three things simultaneously:1. Have good multitrain operating system.2. Be in control of my entire layout from one control panel with 4 operators independantly running trains.3. run a minimum amount of wire4. Spend a reasonable amount of money to do this. Remember, if the price goes over $1,200 I will just by a new Santa Fe Mountain from Sunset.
You seem to a problem with blocks and power districts. They are one in the same as in identical physical things with different names. A block with a switch (switched block) and a power district with a switch (switched power district) are identical.
Switched blocks do not tell you where trains are nor do they offer any type of control of what trains do; they simply allow/disallow operation of a train that is there. DC or DCC does not matter.
If you like operating with switched blocks; fine with me. If you like for a dispatcher to have control of those switches; again fine with me. DC and DCC are interchangeable under these conditions.
Wrong. A block does not just allow or disallow operation of a train there. A block determines WHAT train operates there. A power district can be shut off but cannot allow one train to run there and disallow another. It's the difference between changing channels and turning off the TV.
If you have a single line block system with blocks named A-B-C-D-E in that order, how do you (with DCC) allow cab 1 to operate on only A&B and cab 2 to operate only on D&E?
el-capitan wrote: Wrong. A block does not just allow or disallow operation of a train there. A block determines WHAT train operates there. A power district can be shut off but cannot allow one train to run there and disallow another. It's the difference between changing channels and turning off the TV. If you have a single line block system with blocks named A-B-C-D-E in that order, how do you (with DCC) allow cab 1 to operate on only A&B and cab 2 to operate only on D&E?
Wrong again. Your block system does not control trains; it only controls operators/cabs. The block you describe has no control over which train is in a block; only who can run a train in that block.
This is my last response to this thread; I have more important things to do.
I don't see a point to arguing the semantics of cabs and blocks, the point you make, which is true, is that all trains within a DC block will be controlled by the same cab/throttle, which should greatly reduce the possibilty of a confield meet.
Well, the obvious 'smart' answer is to train the engineers. But, the technology is there, or nearly so to do what you want. I haven't read all the details, and I don't know how it works, but Digitrax's transponding can locate the trains. The 'all you need' is software in the control station that's smart enough to not allow a loco to move into a zone occupied by another. The algorithm to do this would need to know quite a bit about the layout (another thing the command station doesn't know right now), and some rules for how to operate. I rather expect the pieces to do all of this already exist in different products and homebrews, but it could be quite some time before it hits the point where a user friendly, commercially viable system exists.
I can understand your reasons for preferring this method of operation for the trains you run. I'd never have thought of this as an advantage of DC, but I don't have the same concerns you do. It just points out the truth that there is no one right answer.
Jeff
My intent was never to argue this. I just wanted to point out a concern of mine with DCC. Training operators is a priority but in the end we are all human and do make mistakes. It's good to know that there is someone out there that can realize my critiques are constructive criticisms that are only meant to better the current technology, not bash the people who use it.
SpaceMouse,A lot of computer control is already possible, and in fact 100% automated layouts have been done in the past, even back into the ol' dark days of personal computers and the like. But consider this: to have automated switching operations in a yard, you'd have to have 100% reliablity with your equipment. Couplers would have to work the first time, every time. There could be no derailments, nor could you have even so much as one engine stall. I don't think too many people would want to spend that kind of time and money on perfect operating equipment.
el capitan,The "Who's got my train?" call did result in a few collisions over the years, tho' usually with a bumper post more than with another train.Detection every 6' is overkill, IMHO. Why do you need such tiny blocks? At my club, our blocks are about 15' long, which is about 25 cars plus engines & crummy in HO scale. If your trains are normally 12' long, make your blocks 12' long. The dispatcher can then judge how long they are by seeing if they over hang the 12' block or not.
As for your example for block detection, if you had only 32 instead of 34 detection blocks on your home layout, you could use just two Digitrax BDL168's. BDL168's are only $120 ea. at Tony's (that's $7.50 per block). So instead of spending $1000 for Dallee block detectors, you could be spending only $240...but of course you need DCC to use them (and the BDL168's work with non-Digitrax DCC systems, too).
BTW, what club in Michigan has 6000' of mainline track? Are you counting route miles or track miles? If you have a 4-track RoW, then that makes more sense... BTW, my club is one of the bigger ones around, and our layout room takes up more than 6300 sq ft of our 10,000 sq ft building...and our projected mainlines aren't even close to 6000', and that's with 4 divisions!Our club layout is about 1/3rd complete, with 2 of 6 legs operating, and we have 8 BDL168's running all our mainlines with 128 blocks. Our cost so far: $960.
Midland Pacific,Momentum controls with DCC is relatively straight forward. As you may or may not know, each decoder has "Configuration Variables" or "CV's" that control certain features of the decoder. CV01 is the adress, CV02 is start voltage, CV03 is starting momentum, CV04 is braking momentum, etc. You can program on the mainline (even while the train is moving) and change the momentum CV's whenever you want to. So say you are running light engine in the yard, CV03 and CV04 would be set at low levels. But when you couple up to a train, you can increase these numbers to exaggerate the effect of a loaded train.
As for better braking effects, the QSI decoders have an airbrake feature that is really fun to play with. You set the braking momentum high so that the loco will coast for quite some time. To stop the loco, you have to press and release F7 to activate the air brakes. You'll hear an air release and the brake squeel as the train starts to slow. Press F7 again to leave the braking rate alone, otherwise the loco will continue to slow down at an increasing rate. This can be cancelled by simply speeding back up or pressing the Emergency Stop (which cancels all momentum effects, BTW).
Back to el capitan,The dispatcher on a DC layout confines engineers to operate on the section of layout? How so? On my club's old DC cab control layout, the engineers threw the toggles. They got permission from the Yardmaster and by Timetable & Train Order to leave their terminal with their train, threw the toggles, and powered up. As they left, they'd call the dispatcher to tell them they left at such-and-such a time. The dispatcher had no direct control over the electrical power to the track. He could radio the engineer and tell him to go, stop, take a siding, etc., but he couldn't stop an engineer without shutting the whole RR down.
In fact, here's a picture of ol' Cab No. 7 from my old club, ca. 1978:We had 8 mainline cabs, 12 yard cabs, and 5 branchline cabs. The dispatcher controlled none of them. Oh, he had the authority, but he didn't have any toggle switches in front of him.
BTW, if you have trains that weigh in excess of 50lbs, then why don't you have a TTO system? Or a token system? Or any kind of realistic train control system? Even with DC block control, with items that big and expensive, I know I would want to have some kind of paperwork protection and not just electrical.
As for your view that you want more:Q) You want to be able to dispatch from your laptop on wi-fi from your backyard. A) This can already be done, AFAIK. Railroad & Co. is in Beta right now for their new update that will allow a network of computers to run a layout. So you could have a computer for the dispatcher, and another running a tower or yard, and both would talk to each other and auto update. Adding Wi-Fi on top of that should be easy.Q) You want a schematic on your screen of your entire layout. A) See Railroad & Co. We've been using their software suite on my club layout for several years now, and that has a track schematic of our entire layout.Q) You want to click on a turnout, & it switches. A) Again, see Railroad & Co. I do this every time I'm dispatcher.Q) You want to be able to see all of your trains run around on the schematic and know exactly where they are.A) Well, you can see all the trains run around on the layout schematic, but knowing exactly where they are? To the inch? No. You can tell there's something in the block. You can even tell how fast it's going, what number it is, and several other things with Digitrax Transponding (and even more with the new NMRA Bi-D standards). But knowing where the train is in the specific block? I don't think that's ever going to be possible without NASA's budget.Q) You want GPS locators in each engine and caboose.A) GPS isn't good enough. The circle of error with GPS is still not less than 6", right? That means that it could call out your train's location on the wrong track very easily. However, Digitrax does have Transponding, and one can add Transponders to rolling stock and locos if need by (all Digitrax Series 3 decoders already have Transponders).
And as for your comment that you want just one DCC person to admit that accidents are more likely... Sure, not only will I admit that accidents are more likely, but they are far more likely with DCC than with DC. But then I could say the same thing about slot cars in their guided raceways vs. radio controlled cars and their unlimited freedom. Which is more realistic?
And finally, if you are so concerned with controlling your DCC operators from a central point, keep the block system you have. Hook up all the cabs to one DCC system of your choice. They run the trains in the blocks that you have turned on, you control what blocks are on or off. So in your A-B-C-E-D example, you would have the power on for blocks "A-B" and "E-D", but the power for "C" would be off. Thus keeping an enforced seperation between the trains.
You don't need a seperate booster for each cab. Probably just one for the whole home layout.
Now this isn't how one would normally do things with DCC, as it costs quite a bit extra to wire up DCC and toggle blocks, but it can be done. Especially if you already have the toggle blocks.
el-capitan wrote:Many people with larger DCC layouts have and should be able to break down large layouts into smaller areas by installing isolation switches to make it easier to find shorts. Other than that every DCC layout I have ever been to has always ran a buss wire the entire length of rail for power.
Many people with larger DCC layouts have and should be able to break down large layouts into smaller areas by installing isolation switches to make it easier to find shorts. Other than that every DCC layout I have ever been to has always ran a buss wire the entire length of rail for power.
Paul,
I was assuming couplers that were automated like those coming out in Europe.
Capt.
I don't know other systems, but with Digitrax, anyone with a DT-400 or a UT-4 can steal a loco. Would that give you the level of control you seek? It's not quite the panic button of shutting down the track.
SpaceMouse wrote: Capt.I don't know other systems, but with Digitrax, anyone with a DT-400 or a UT-4 can steal a loco. Would that give you the level of control you seek? It's not quite the panic button of shutting down the track.
Chip,My ex girlfriend was and is a model railroader and when she wasn't looking I would "steal" her train.
As far as accidents they will happen in DCC without being klutz.. On my short lived around the walls layout I was switching Landmark and checking car numbers as I pulled a cut of covered hopper from Landmark..My girlfriend was switching the yard and of course checking numbers.I continued my reverse move checking numbers she continue to pull forward checking car numbers..LandMark was located on the North side of the yard on its own lead..However this lead join the yard lead and there was clearance for 8 cars and a loco..Got the picture? I pulled 10 cars thinking I still held the yard lead East of the Landmark switch as per Track Form 24a Permit #7..However my time limit had expired and I continued my reverse move resulting in a side swipe with the yard engine..So yeah accidents wil happen.
Spacemouse
Do yourself and the forum a big favor. Please edit the title to this thread and delete the DC. It has become apparent that the DCC guys are ALL KNOWING. They cannot acknowledge that DC has redeeming value. Not even one and here is why.
Wiring is simple when need be for the sake of argument and can be complex if argument dictates. DCCers can have blocks, switches and short finding IF they want it.. Especially when they want to belittle the DC crowd. The rest of the time wiring is easy.
The DC folks in this thread and the forum have been ridiculed, dismissed and treated like second class modelers. We are not.
The most knowledgeable DC person around has no business participating in this tread, his input will always be dismissed. Any fool who runs DCC and this thread has shown a couple to be sure, will be given the utmost in respect for no other reason than he is running DCC. Some folks on this forum by there own admission have no or little knowledge about DC. Actually they have little knowledge about the hobby other than running up post counts. Yet they are the first to point out the lack of any value to DC.
Gee, a first time anonymous poster who comes in late to flame the heck out of bunch of regulars. Hmmm. I smell the scent of Troll...or a sock puppet. Who could it be?
But just in case you aren't a Troll or a sock puppet, Mr. clang, I'm a DCC guy, and here's three DC redeeming values...it's cheaper, you don't have to modify equipment to run with it, and you can always get parts for it.
It's not more realistic. It's not easy to get different brand locos to run together. It's not easy to wire for multi-train operation. There's a lot of things that DC is not.
So what is your complaint with DCC, Mr. Anonymous?
Paul A. Cutler III - yes, my real name!************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Paul3 wrote: Gee, a first time anonymous poster who comes in late to flame the heck out of bunch of regulars. Hmmm. I smell the scent of Troll...or a sock puppet. Who could it be?But just in case you aren't a Troll or a sock puppet, Mr. clang, I'm a DCC guy, and here's three DC redeeming values...it's cheaper, you don't have to modify equipment to run with it, and you can always get parts for it. It's not more realistic. It's not easy to get different brand locos to run together. It's not easy to wire for multi-train operation. There's a lot of things that DC is not.So what is your complaint with DCC, Mr. Anonymous? Paul A. Cutler III - yes, my real name!************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
I have absolutely no complaints about DCC, but right now I would prefer to spend money in other ways. I think anyone who wants to use it has every right to upgrade to it. I am just tired of the way the DC and its users are being portrayed here. That is my complaint.
Not everyone wants his or her full name out on the Internet. Most members are only using a screen name or partial name. I am not a troll or a puppet. You do not call everyone else who joins the forums names that do not include a full name, why me? I could have used Charles Schultz for a name even though it is not. Which long time forum members did I flame?
You make some good points here and the Atlas forum Paul, at least you are looking at things subjectively and not emotionally. I have nothing against you.
Clang, I have nothing against you...I don't know you, I think. But your diatribe above was combative and not constructive. You use absolute and categorical terms in many of your statements; for example, the first was, in my view, quite inflammatory and ridiculed all DCC users, including me. Was it your intent to include me? Please think about that.
It is hard to let go of old ways of doing things. Sometimes it is hard to admit, even to see, how they improve the hobby. The subject of realism is a no brainer to me since DCC has made sound local to a moving engine, and has imparted prototypical realism to entire train movements, without resorting to mechanical switching devices in order to keep the locomotives moving indepedant of continuous route control. Once I line turnouts, usually with a series of reaches into the layout, I can dial up my loco, and set the throttle to let it accelerate out of the yard and negotiate the preset path without any further action. If a short takes place, it will almost always be at a turnout, but that happens rarely. In DC, unless the operator is actively and assiduously manipulating a wide array of mechanical switches as the locomotive moves, there will be a short or an accident....period. I can think of no engineman who has to run ahead of his locomotive and throw mechanical switches to keep his train moving safely. It all happens in the cab, and that is closer to the reality of hand-held DCC control.
Please feel welcome to join in, but try to keep the rancour out of your statements so that we can take what you offer seriously.
Clang,
Since you singled me out, I'll respond. Actually I see both DC and DCC as being limited, just that DC is more limited than DCC. The limits I see with DCC have to do with the standards set forth by the NMRA and the interface. If we compare the evolution of DCC to the computer we are barely out of the machine language phase.
Now the NMRA standards are a good thing in terms of making a uniform system in which all manufacturers can play, but it still represents a wall of sorts. And it also pretty much guarantees that when we move to DCC 2.0 we will have backward compatibility legislated into the new standards.
selector,First NO engineer or conductor throws a switch from a locomotive cab in order to run his train..That doesn't happen.That is pure DCC fantasy..DC operation can be as simple as 2 wires from the power pack to the track for single train operation..Add selectors-very basic block wiring system and you can add blocks.
Larry, I know that...it was my point. In DC you must line the route...no diff there. Once the locomotive is in motion, and if another is nearby, you must begin a series of switch throws to keep things sorted out, almost as if you, the engineman, has to dismount and run ahead of the loco to make sure it is always going to be safe. Not so with DCC. No switches...just enjoyment of watching the trains run.
I may have stated what I wanted to say poorly...I admit that.
selector wrote: Larry, I know that...it was my point. In DC you must line the route...no diff there. Once the locomotive is in motion, and if another is nearby, you must begin a series of switch throws to keep things sorted out, almost as if you, the engineman, has to dismount and run ahead of the loco to make sure it is always going to be safe. Not so with DCC. No switches...just enjoyment of watching the trains run.I may have stated what I wanted to say poorly...I admit that.
I knew you knew that.. Both systems are fantasies though when compared to the prototype. Again for small DC single train layouts 2 wires from the power pack to the track will work and will give you the same basic hands off operation..
I usually operate alone so I set all my switches AHEAD of time to cab A. Chances are they are already set. Then I operate for as long as I wish with out doing any of this.
selector wrote: In DC, unless the operator is actively and assiduously manipulating a wide array of mechanical switches as the locomotive moves, there will be a short or an accident....period.
This portrayal however sure sounds "absolute and categorical" to me. Thank you for making my point so clearly. Could be you are guilty of the very thing you accused me of.
This is exactly the type of nonsense that is being spread about on this thread. Any DC guy knows you don't have to run ahead and constantly do this.
selector wrote: I can think of no engineman who has to run ahead of his locomotive and throw mechanical switches to keep his train moving safely. It all happens in the cab, and that is closer to the reality of hand-held DCC control.
I can think of no engineman who has to run ahead of his locomotive and throw mechanical switches to keep his train moving safely. It all happens in the cab, and that is closer to the reality of hand-held DCC control.
Any real railroader or intelligent railfan knows railroads are not run as you portrayed them here also.
Spacemouse I only singled you out because of the title and Selector I never singled you out either until I responded to your comments.
clang,When you come into a forum, guns a'blazin', don't be surprised to have people shoot back. What did you expect to happen? Geez, you sign up today of all days, you just post on only this one subject, and you use that first ever post to anonymously attack a bunch of people. What made you think that kind of behavior is acceptable? Do you do this at work? Social occasions?
You called us a bunch of fools, you decry some non-existant ridicule of DC users (nice strawman argument, BTW), and then said we had very little knowledge other than to run up post counts. Well, as you can see by my case, I've only got 735 posts over almost 5 years here. That's less than 1 post every two days so I'm hardly a star chaser. And I've been a model railroader since I was 15, a member of my RR club for 14 years (and a member of another now defunct club), and I've built 7 different layouts in five different scales, so I think I've been around the block once or twice.
As far as being anonymous, true enough, most people here do not give out their real names...but then most people don't register on a forum the day they go after a bunch of people. Those that do are usually Trolls or sock puppets (to the uninititated, that's slang for a fake identity used by a forum regular to make it appear that he has people agreeing with him, or to attack people without getting into trouble). Clang, if you aren't a Troll or a sock puppet, then you have my apologies. But you'd probably get this kind of reaction anywhere on the net if you introduce yourself this way.
Personally, I prefer real names as it shows you have the courage of your convictions. But to each their own. I don't normally hold it against people that want to remain anonymous any more, but what you did was classic troll behavior, that I've seen done over and over again in my 11 years on the 'net.
Thanks Paul for making me count them up. It feels impossible that I've been on the NET for just shy of 20 years and posting on forums (called bulletin boards back then) for 17.
selector wrote:It is hard to let go of old ways of doing things. Sometimes it is hard to admit, even to see, how they improve the hobby
It is hard to let go of old ways of doing things. Sometimes it is hard to admit, even to see, how they improve the hobby
I can think of no engineman who has to run ahead of his locomotive and throw mechanical switches to keep his train moving safely.
Jason-Train wrote:I"m using a DC only layout with several blocks and cabs and there are many things I don't like about it.However DCC IMHO is cost prohibitive, this is more than likely a supply demand market / economics issue and DCC will become more cost effective but again IMHO it is too steep for me.Regarding battery power, I don't think this is a good idea. There isn't a battery that can supply enough "juice" for a long session, powering the rails is the only way IMHO.The failure in DCC is the requirement to convert the rails to AC. This was a design flaw from the get go. The technology should have been implemented more along the lines of bluetooth or wifi as these are tested and true and going through constant technology improvements. Why the NMRA felt the need to invent the wheel again IMHO was a mistake.If DCC had been implemented like a TCP/IP network it would have made more sense. There wouldn't have been a requirement to convert to AC. We'd be using a technology that has global standards, etc etc. You could control your train from a bluetooth smartphone :)I'm not in any position to say DCC under its current itteration will fail however it has been pourly designed and frankly it doesn't appear the folks that did design it involved non-hobby technologists. DCC is WAY to freaking sensitive. When I hear about how folks are putting in leads every 3 feet or more, that is rediculus (sp). Compensation for dirty rails or poor design in wire, etc, again a mistake IMHO. If you have to put in leads like that, it should say something about the technology. I'd call a design like this one, crap. You don't hide problems by saturating the condition with non-required components. You do it right from design to implementation resulting in SOLID frameworks. (That said perhaps I'm un-enlightend on why folks put in leads every 3 feet /shurg).All that said, I have not read every page of the DCC NMRA PDF's or every publication so while I've said what I've said, perhaps I'm way off base.that's my 2 un-DCC-educated coppersEDITBefore the thread gets hijacked, I wanted to say, this thread is about DCC as a technology, correct? This isn't about DC / DCC blocks, or helping folks troubleshoot the solution.I'd like folks to debate the point if DCC is the right direction, and/or if it is too late to change. Perhaps I've mis-understood Chips initial post. I had a few guys ninja post while I took the 3 hours to get this post done LOL (posting at work is not so easy :) )
"Yes I was looking at the SPROG home page http://www.sprog-dcc.co.uk/ which has some step by step instructions for connectign the SPROG and don't mention needing to manually send the config information. It just says to download the Java runtimes from Sun, install JMRI, and plug in the SPROG."
Ah, that was the problem. Also, maybe it's SPROG I vs SPROG II thing? The SPROG II looks like what I was talking about, especially if it they've made the setup invisible.
Question - is JMRI and SPROG widely used? Although I subscribe to the N SCale DCC group, I tend not to read many threads closely, so I may have just missed references to it.
Okay, Mark, you got me. I now know of one engineman who has to run ahead of his loco to keep things moving.
-Crandell
"Finally, I want one, just one, DCC guy to admit that accidents are more likely on a DCC layout over a DC layout. Even if its only.01% greater, admit that it is more likely. Because I have yet to hear someone with DCC say that."
Well, head on accidents are more likely to happen, that's for sure.
Don't know about "all" accidents, though, especially if you count "someones got my train" as an accident.
Okay, I'm throwing my two pennies in here.
Just how MANY trains do we need to run at one time, especially those of us--and I think we're probably a majority--that operate one-person layouts?
When I go out for an operating session on my Yuba River Sub, I think of possibly operating a max of TWO trains at once on the mainline. I can do that on DC. Is DCC going to let me operate three to five or more on a rather complex mountain layout that--though it has a double-track mainline--is actually based upon the protoypical premise of about 15-20 trains per day (and I don't mean Scale Time, whatever that is, but the actual time I spend operating.)? And while these trains are running around the layout, over high bridges and around VERY steep canyons, am I supposed to be able to make up even more trains in my rather limited yard and have helper locos ready at the right spot to be added on or dropped off? Am I supposed to become the Ultimate Multi-Tasker just to say that I'm actually Running A Railroad, when I should be easing back and enjoying watching the trains? Or am I supposed to be continually punching in numbers to make sure that I don't have a $700 brass loco and its compliment of cars derailing and taking a 6' nose-dive off of one of my floor to ceiling cliffs because I was so busy trying to make up a reefer consist in Deer Creek Yard while everything else was going on?
I am SORRY, guys, and you can take all the pot-shots you want, but I am ONE person, and I do ONE thing at a time. I worked for a Multi-Tasker at my other high-school. She never got anything done, and that what WAS done was so sub-standard that I was always cleaning up her mess.
Okay, rant over. I just don't see the advantage of DCC in my life. Nor the electrical headaches I keep hearing about from modelers who have bit the bug and gone for it.
Maybe if I had a Clone, i'd go for it. I'm not.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Jeez Tom,
What's with the chip on the shoulder?
You explained why DC works for you on your layout with two trains. So your quest for the ultimate multi-train system is finished. Cool. No-one has said you have to do anything more.
I operate alone, too, but I have single track and enjoy setting up a meet or pass with a local while another train runs on the main. I have on occasion run three trains all in the same direction, but just for display for visitors.
I have DCC, but like you don't multi-task all that well, but I want to do more. My quest isn't finished.
twhite wrote: Okay, I'm throwing my two pennies in here. Just how MANY trains do we need to run at one time, especially those of us--and I think we're probably a majority--that operate one-person layouts? SNIPI am SORRY, guys, and you can take all the pot-shots you want, but I am ONE person, and I do ONE thing at a time. I worked for a Multi-Tasker at my other high-school. She never got anything done, and that what WAS done was so sub-standard that I was always cleaning up her mess. Okay, rant over. I just don't see the advantage of DCC in my life. Nor the electrical headaches I keep hearing about from modelers who have bit the bug and gone for it. Maybe if I had a Clone, i'd go for it. I'm not. Tom
SNIP
Why would anyone take a pot-shot at you just because you use DC ? If it works for you (and apparently it does) without problems or complications; then go for it. Operating one (sometimes two) loco with one operator is easily done with either DC or DCC (just shut off the blocks with other loco's). This thread is for multi-train comments. Since I quite often operate two engines, I joined in. The only real advantage to DCC in a one man operation (that I can see) is reduced complexity of wiring possible with DCC. I would suspect that "most" of our home layouts are "generally" one man operations (I know that mine is).
For me, DCC allows me to completely forget about blocks and possible problems with loco's that I don't intend to run, but still sit on the layout and ready to go. I simply select the loco(s) that I want to run and do it. I only have to throw the proper turnouts and run the engine. My operating fleet, minus one, is all sound. I find that DCC simplifies the operation and makes things more enjoyable That may not be your experience.
The subject of accidents has been constantly brought up. Accidents are caused by operators (speed, wrong or no turnout, etc.) and normally by inattention to the task at hand; not by the type of operating system (DC or DCC).
Do what works for you and what you enjoy. I, for one, will not try to "convert" you to DCC.
MTennent wrote: Jeez Tom, What's with the chip on the shoulder? Mike Tennent
You are the one with this chip. Right on schedule when a modeler says anything good about DC he is questioned. Heavens to Betsey if a DC guy sticks up for his system. Funny how the DCC guys cannot stand this. Maybe it has something to do with the way we get treated here.
I see where Paul3 apologized for calling me puppet and troll. Thank you
clang wrote: MTennent wrote: Jeez Tom, What's with the chip on the shoulder? Mike TennentYou are the one with this chip.
You are the one with this chip.
Would you please explain to the rest of us where you got the fact that Mike has a "chip" on his shoulder. Mike actually said that it was cool that Tom had found the best multi-operator system for him. I agree.
clang wrote:Right on schedule when a modeler says anything good about DC he is questioned. Heavens to Betsey if a DC guy sticks up for his system.
Again, please show us where Mike said anything that would tell you he was questioning Tom.
clang wrote: Funny how the DCC guys cannot stand this. Maybe it has something to do with the way we get treated here.
I'm a "DCC guy", and it doesn't bother me one bit if you're DC or not. If a person already has a layout built, and wired for his type of operating, I have never advocated him changing, unless he wanted to. After having 7 layouts that were wired for multiple operators, (5-6 on each), in DC, I can't see myself spending the amount of money on the number and types of rotary switches and the extra wiring needed to support the number of operators I'm looking for on the layout I'm currently building, (which can be from just me all the way to 8). A good rotary switch of the type I need, costs alot more than the types of decoders I have in my engines.
clang wrote:I see where Paul3 apologized for calling me puppet and troll. Thank you
I think he may have been hasty.JMO
Carey
Keep it between the Rails
Alabama Central Homepage
Nara member #128
NMRA &SER Life member
Paul3 wrote: Back to el capitan,The dispatcher on a DC layout confines engineers to operate on the section of layout? How so? On my club's old DC cab control layout, the engineers threw the toggles. They got permission from the Yardmaster and by Timetable & Train Order to leave their terminal with their train, threw the toggles, and powered up. As they left, they'd call the dispatcher to tell them they left at such-and-such a time. The dispatcher had no direct control over the electrical power to the track. He could radio the engineer and tell him to go, stop, take a siding, etc., but he couldn't stop an engineer without shutting the whole RR down.
Not with my layout. Dispatcher controls all track power on the main and in smaller towns. The only exception is for my larger yard which is controlled by the yardmaster for that town.
Paul3 wrote: BTW, if you have trains that weigh in excess of 50lbs, then why don't you have a TTO system? Or a token system? Or any kind of realistic train control system? Even with DC block control, with items that big and expensive, I know I would want to have some kind of paperwork protection and not just electrical.
Not sure what you mean here, please explain. Whatever it is, the block system for my layout so far has resulted in zero bumps, scrapes, or collisions so I am pretty happy with it.
Paul3 wrote: As for your view that you want more:Q) You want to be able to dispatch from your laptop on wi-fi from your backyard. A) This can already be done, AFAIK. Railroad & Co. is in Beta right now for their new update that will allow a network of computers to run a layout. So you could have a computer for the dispatcher, and another running a tower or yard, and both would talk to each other and auto update. Adding Wi-Fi on top of that should be easy.Q) You want a schematic on your screen of your entire layout. A) See Railroad & Co. We've been using their software suite on my club layout for several years now, and that has a track schematic of our entire layout.Q) You want to click on a turnout, & it switches. A) Again, see Railroad & Co. I do this every time I'm dispatcher.Q) You want to be able to see all of your trains run around on the schematic and know exactly where they are.A) Well, you can see all the trains run around on the layout schematic, but knowing exactly where they are? To the inch? No. You can tell there's something in the block. You can even tell how fast it's going, what number it is, and several other things with Digitrax Transponding (and even more with the new NMRA Bi-D standards). But knowing where the train is in the specific block? I don't think that's ever going to be possible without NASA's budget.
As for your view that you want more:Q) You want to be able to dispatch from your laptop on wi-fi from your backyard. A) This can already be done, AFAIK. Railroad & Co. is in Beta right now for their new update that will allow a network of computers to run a layout. So you could have a computer for the dispatcher, and another running a tower or yard, and both would talk to each other and auto update. Adding Wi-Fi on top of that should be easy.Q) You want a schematic on your screen of your entire layout. A) See Railroad & Co. We've been using their software suite on my club layout for several years now, and that has a track schematic of our entire layout.Q) You want to click on a turnout, & it switches. A) Again, see Railroad & Co. I do this every time I'm dispatcher.Q) You want to be able to see all of your trains run around on the schematic and know exactly where they are.A) Well, you can see all the trains run around on the layout schematic, but knowing exactly where they are? To the inch? No. You can tell there's something in the block. You can even tell how fast it's going, what number it is, and several other things with Digitrax Transponding (and even more with the new NMRA Bi-D standards). But knowing where the train is in the specific block? I don't think that's ever going to be possible without NASA's budget.
This all sounds exactly like what I want, but I don't think that it would take nasa's budget. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Nintendo Wii video game system but it is a "next generation" system that uses a motion sensor instead of a joystick type controller. The system knows exactly where the controller is as well as angle, position and speed of the controller. Maybe GPS isn't the way to go but the technology is definately out there. We just need a "Microsoft" to grab hold of it and give us a good package. Don't get me wrong, I hate microsoft but you have to admit that they have standardized the computer world and put out a user friendly operating system that even a dummy like me can use.
Paul3 wrote: Q) You want GPS locators in each engine and caboose.A) GPS isn't good enough. The circle of error with GPS is still not less than 6", right? That means that it could call out your train's location on the wrong track very easily. However, Digitrax does have Transponding, and one can add Transponders to rolling stock and locos if need by (all Digitrax Series 3 decoders already have Transponders).
Q) You want GPS locators in each engine and caboose.A) GPS isn't good enough. The circle of error with GPS is still not less than 6", right? That means that it could call out your train's location on the wrong track very easily. However, Digitrax does have Transponding, and one can add Transponders to rolling stock and locos if need by (all Digitrax Series 3 decoders already have Transponders).
Maybe not GPS. I was just throwing out there as a "what if?"
Paul3 wrote: And as for your comment that you want just one DCC person to admit that accidents are more likely... Sure, not only will I admit that accidents are more likely, but they are far more likely with DCC than with DC. But then I could say the same thing about slot cars in their guided raceways vs. radio controlled cars and their unlimited freedom. Which is more realistic?
Finally someone admits it. My respect for you just whent up by ten. I am all for realism, but not at the expense of my brass. That's why I brought all this up, I want the realistic operation without the risks.
Paul3 wrote: And finally, if you are so concerned with controlling your DCC operators from a central point, keep the block system you have. Hook up all the cabs to one DCC system of your choice. They run the trains in the blocks that you have turned on, you control what blocks are on or off. So in your A-B-C-E-D example, you would have the power on for blocks "A-B" and "E-D", but the power for "C" would be off. Thus keeping an enforced seperation between the trains.
This is a great point. I thought about this over the weekend. I really couldn't use my current block configuration. However, I always planned on putting in a signaling system if I went to DCC, maybe even with DC. Each signal would be controlled by a relay that is locally mounted near the signal. If I get relays with enough contacts and capable of handling 18V, I could wire in a 12" section of track at the signal that would be shut down when both west and east signals are red.
Thanks for all the comments Paul. This is exactly what I was tring to get out of posting in this thread.
FYI: In an earlier post I suggested a engine location system that used a radio transmitter and locater for detection. It would need a computer system. The locater is located beneath the layout (closer to the floor the better) and the track plan is coded into the computer. The computer compares the direction of the transmitter to the track plan and establishes the engines location. Block detection still might be needed for yards.
I came up with this on my quest to pull sound out of the engine and put it into the environment--stereo sound through the home sound system. But there is no reason why this type of locater system can't be used for dispatching purposes.
There have been a few comments over the weekend that block control cannot be prototypical because engineers in real life do not have to get out of their cabs to throw switches. Let me explain how my layout works.
A dispatcher sits at a panel that has selector switches for routing power from each cab to each block. There are also toggle switches for each turnout on the main line. The dispatcher conducts the railroad much like a conductor of a symphony, he's not blowing into the french horn, he's just letting the french horn player know when to blow. The dispatcher tells trains where they are allowed to go and when. This is how a real railroad with CTC works and how my railroad works. The only difference is, after a dispatcher on my railroad clears a freight into rincon, he throws a selector switch to route power. The engineer just drives his train.
Now in the smaller towns where CTC is not available, there are also no automated turnouts. While the dispatcher still needs to route power to this town, he has no control over the switches. The fireman or brakeman would exit the cab or caboose and throw the switches. This is true for my layout and also for the big boys.
The only areas that I can see DCC would lend to more realistic operation is in a large yard where you may have several separate locomotives operating in close proximity to each other. Even then, with the proper block configuration and a savvy yard master, this can be overcome with DC block control.
And please don't respond with DC bashing. I just wanted to explain how my layout operates and show that it is pretty close to the prototype.
SpaceMouse wrote: Capt.FYI: In an earlier post I suggested a engine location system that used a radio transmitter and locater for detection. It would need a computer system. The locater is located beneath the layout (closer to the floor the better) and the track plan is coded into the computer. The computer compares the direction of the transmitter to the track plan and establishes the engines location. Block detection still might be needed for yards.I came up with this on my quest to pull sound out of the engine and put it into the environment--stereo sound through the home sound system. But there is no reason why this type of locater system can't be used for dispatching purposes.
This technology sounds like it will work. Unfortunately I am not tech-geeky enough to be able to implement it on my layout. I know how to use toggle switches and relays and most of the time I can remember that red is positive (although I have no idea why I need to know that). Computer code and binary numbers are way above me. This being said I can still start up windows and create a document in word without being a tech geek. What I am looking for is the "Microsoft Model Railroad Control Package" or some such thing. A package that is user friendly that is plug and play and will control a layout as a whole.
"What I am looking for is the "Microsoft Model Railroad Control Package" or some such thing. A package that is user friendly that is plug and play and will control a layout as a whole."
Capt,
I think the packages are out there, but the "user friendly" part depends a lot on the user.
The biggest problem, of course, is that everyone's layout is different, so any program has to be flexible. There will always be a need to specificly set up a system for your layout. That adds a lot of complexity. It shouldn't involve writing code or binary numbers, but if you have more than a simple oval, it gets complicated.
Systems like CMRI and JMRI have the basic things you want, but setting them up to control a layout is still more than simple plug n play.
Perhaps the ideal program would let you draw your layout ala the existing CAD programs and the program would then generate the specs and operating software, screen, etc for your system. It could tell you where you'd need sensors, blocks, wiring diagrams etc. depending on what you wanted to do.
It's a shame part of this thread has taken on a DC vs DCC tilt, because the "ultimate" control program can be operating system independent. If you look at what is needed - train location sensing and automation, its irrelevant how you control the engines. You are still locating engines, setting their speed, setting speed and stops, setting turnouts for routes, etc. Whether that's done via a cab block system or DCC is irrelevant, a computer can handle that detail.
"Would you please explain to the rest of us where you got the fact that Mike has a "chip" on his shoulder. Mike actually said that it was cool that Tom had found the best multi-operator system for him. I agree."
Thanks carey,
My first reaction to that post was aggravation, but then I realized who wrote it.
Mtennant,
Yes everyones layout is different. Here's how I would envision it working. You load the program on your computer and a sensor in a locomotive. You run the program and there is a button called "learn layout". After clicking on this buton you run the locomotive (DCC or DC) over every foot of track on your layout. The computer is tracking this movement and creating a schematic of your layout. When complete drop a sensor in all of your locomotives and cabooses and you can track all trains on your layout.
Similar things could be done for turnout control, signal control, etc.
If I had the brains to make this work it would already be on the market.
Chip/Capt,
Both of you refer to sensors in an engine, but I wonder if it might be best to think of transmiters in the engine.
My understanding of location sensing thingees are that they are based on triangulation of a signal.
For our purposes, a transmitter in an engine would send a signal to 3 or 4 our sensors around the room that were hooked to a computer. The computer would do the triangulation and act on the result.
If the sensor was in the engine, it would have to sense a signal from multiple transmitters, compute it onboard, and then send the results out again (by air or rail.) I think that technology would be more difficult and prone to error. Opinions?
Chip: did you ever locate a radio system for sound like you refer to? I vaguely remember then thread, but not the result.
Here is one guy that has BOTH DC and DCC, and DC "on top of" DCC. Either DC or DCC one at a time (I have to unplug my DCC and plug in my DC). I mostly use DCC. I can use DCC and DC "on top of" DC at the SAME time however. So I can run my DCC engines and ONE DC engine, all with their own throttle.
I can see why guys who have been using DC and have large collections of DC locomotives. It's not easy to convert, especially in N scale. (I cant even figure out how to open up some of my engines). Also, when someone comes over and brings their DC engine, I can have DC so I KNOW I wont damage it.
I primarily went to DCC becuase I have reversing loops.
Also, large layouts have special issues. DC may actually be better in some cases. Being able to run two engines in the same power district with seperate throttles and seperate reversing controls is NOT always an advantage.
Theres a lot of choices out there. Lots of great items to explore.
CSX Robert wrote:After reading through this topic, I had to add my two cents worth. The "DC versus DCC" debate is a lot like the "which DCC system" debate in that a lot of people get tied up in which is better. Neither is inherently better, the real question is which is better for me. I love DCC, but for me to say that there are no advantages to DC and that every DC user should switch to DCC (which is the attitude that SOME DCC users have) would be ridiculous. I believe DCC control to be more prototypical, but we are not running real trains and more prototypical is not necessarily better.I wouldn’t consider myself an expert but I think I have a fairly good understanding of DCC and I know a lot about computers (I am a Computer Programmer by trade). I am not going to say that DCC is perfect, but it is much more suited to model train control than WIFI or Bluetooth. The NMRA did not “invent the wheel again.” They based the DCC standards on a system that was “tested and true” that was developed by Lenz before WIFI or Bluetooth.The reason for the DCC waveform (I’m not going to get into the “is it or is it not AC” argument here) is to provide power and control signals over the two rails. It is not necessary to put leads every 3 feet. I had a 4’ x 16’ unitrack test loop powered from one set of leads. I did have a significant voltage drop at the far end of the loop, but that would have been true for DC control also. I did not have any trouble with operation however.
My comment for bluetooth and wifi was re: "todays" technology. Eithernet was around before NMRA (if not, then ArcNet sure as heck was and you can run 10baseT over arcnet cat3 cable). Knowing they (NMRA) used a "solution" from an existing (LENZ) manufacuturer in a sense proves my point. They didn't think out of the box, they just went with the flow. Had they looked to technology with a list of criteria instead of partnering with an existing provider, perhaps the end solution would have been something extensible, standard, not bound to just MRR (i.e. bridging a gap across hobbies).
Someone else posted such that if a future solution were to become available, it would "have" to be compatible with existing DCC. I wouldn't bank on that. They somewhat scrapped DC for DCC did they not? The creation of something new and better doesn't make it required for backward compatibility.
I'm a DC guy, I see the pro's and con's of both. In some ways I would like DCC on my layout, I'm not part of a club, I'm a guy in my basement enjoying the hobby. It worries me to know, and CSX Robert and Chip clarified this somewhat for me, NMRA used an existing tech. instead of makeing a new one.
Think about this, it is in the best interests of manufacuters to keep us all guessing. Why would any manufacturer invent a new better solution that is backwards compatible, that makes poor business sense. I'm not saying drop DCC off the map, I'm saying force the hobby enthusiest to buy new as often as is tollerable.
Look at it this way, it took how long for DCC to get a foot hold (not it's birth, but have x% of the market)? I'd guess it would be about half that time to find something new and better. It will happen, it is just a matter of when.
DC nor DCC is the best it "can" be. Every train manufacturer is banking on that.
I don't know if the boards have a "Poll" option but I would be the majority of "posters" here are DCC.
If the poll had the three choices Chip had in his title
DC
DCC
The quest for something better
I'd be picking "The quest for something better".
You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder.
You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.
I never did more than theorize about this.
MTennent wrote: Chip/Capt,Both of you refer to sensors in an engine, but I wonder if it might be best to think of transmiters in the engine. My understanding of location sensing thingees are that they are based on triangulation of a signal. For our purposes, a transmitter in an engine would send a signal to 3 or 4 our sensors around the room that were hooked to a computer. The computer would do the triangulation and act on the result. If the sensor was in the engine, it would have to sense a signal from multiple transmitters, compute it onboard, and then send the results out again (by air or rail.) I think that technology would be more difficult and prone to error. Opinions?Chip: did you ever locate a radio system for sound like you refer to? I vaguely remember then thread, but not the result. Mike Tennent
clang wrote: MTennent wrote: Jeez Tom, What's with the chip on the shoulder? Mike TennentYou are the one with this chip. Right on schedule when a modeler says anything good about DC he is questioned. Heavens to Betsey if a DC guy sticks up for his system. Funny how the DCC guys cannot stand this. Maybe it has something to do with the way we get treated here. I see where Paul3 apologized for calling me puppet and troll. Thank you
Clang--
Actually, I don't think Mike was dissing me at all. I DID come on a little strong in my post, and he mentioned that if DC worked fine for me, to keep at it. So I'm not bothered by his answer--in fact it was pretty well thought out, IMO.
It's just that the DC/DCC thing has kind of gotten under my skin, most recently at my LHS, where one of the guys was as much as telling me that if I DIDN'T go DCC, I'd be sort of like those dinosaurs, just waiting for the Big Comet to strike. I asked him if he'd like to help fund the conversion for my 45 or so brass locos, and his answer was--"You actually RUN brass?" Kind of ticked me off. He's new there, hopefully the other guys will set him straight, LOL!
In the meantime, two trains is about all my mind can handle. I'll stick with what I've got.
Oh, by the way, I'm a little confused with the term 'Block' as used in this DC/DCC discussion. I hear about not using 'blocks' in DCC because they are not needed. Now I use a 'block' system on the Yuba River sub, but I use it in what I thought was the original prototypical application--a set of signals at certain intervals to let the train know whether to stop or proceed. My 'blocks' are set up to contain at least a 30-car train (the maximum number of cars I operate), and if the signal ahead is set for red, I stop the train until the signal is cleared for green. Is this what a 'block' means in model railroad parlance? I always thought it did. In fact, it seems to me that even in DCC, one would want to set his railroad up into 'blocked' sections, simply because it's what the real railroads do.
Can anyone clarify this for me?
Best,
Your definition of a block is correct but there are more than one meaning. I should have termed mine "electrical block". My electrical blocks on my DC layout work in much the same manner that you were describing and at the end of most of them there will be a signal. Each of these blocks or sections of track have a separate toggle switch on my dispatchers panel. I have 4 throttles that can each have their power routed to any of my blocks. For instance, if I have a five block single track with the following names A-B-C-D-E and train one is in block C I route power for cab 1 to block C and to D. Train 1 can then move to block D. Once he is clear of block C, I can route train 2 (who was sitting in block B) to follow train 1 into block C. Blocks on my layout are simply sections of track operating off the same toggle switch. Only one train can be in a block at one time (unless someone is not paying attention). Most DCC layouts will have blocks but not electrical blocks. Since multiple trains can operate simultaneously they do not have the need for toggle switches and selecting cabs but many do have signals.
Hopefully you are not more confused now than when you asked the question.
el-capitan wrote:I just wanted to explain how my layout operates and show that it is pretty close to the prototype.
I just wanted to explain how my layout operates and show that it is pretty close to the prototype.
Stop and stay. They also can radio the dispatcher and ask for clearance.
Sure, there are many different operating systems. Train order and ABS to name a few. These two would both lend themselves better to DCC.
I was just trying to point out that prototypical operation is possible with a DC block system.
Being new to the hobby and still being open to making the decision to go DC or DCC, I found this thread highly interesting and enlightening. I know its beating a dead horse to some of you, but I was glad to have it to read through.
I think some of the clash between the two camps is in the definition of "ultimate" or "best". To some, cost is the biggest factor. To others, ease of construction may be paramount. Still others, flexibility of operation is their primary goal. And finally, I'm sure there are quite a few that are familiar with one style and would rather not learn a different one, be it new or old. I think you, the model railroader, need to evalutate your goals versus the traits of each and go that direction. Afterall, to borrow the excellent analogy, slot car racing and RC car racing are still both going strong.
With that said, operationally speaking and assuming cost and a construction are non-issues, I don't see what DC can do that DCC can't. DCC can certainly be wired to switches and in blocks like DC if that provides a desired benefit. In DC it may be required to run multiple trains, but it doesn't mean you can't get it's side benefits in DCC. DCC merely has the flexibility to let you do it either way. It's your layout, wire it how you please.
And please, PLEASE don't invite Microsoft to design the next generation of train control. It'll come with a thousand features you'll never use (including solitaire!), at least 1 of the features you do want to use won't work right, and it will consume every amp of spare energy your wiring can support. And I don't even want to see the equivalent of the blue screen of death in model railroading! :)
DC is usually more fault tolerant than DCC. Running pure DC, If I run my DC locomotive into a switch set wrong, it just jams. The other trains, even ones in that power district keep moving. Even the wheels on the jammed locomotive keep churning. With my DCC, all the trains in that power district, and sometimes ALL the power districts on that transformer stop. And sometimes they have to be individually restarted (sometimes not), which means re-throttling and turning the lights back on etc. With DC, you just throw the switch, rerail and go.
There ARE locomotives that won't run on DCC, LOTS of them. There are even some that won't run on DC on top of DCC (which I have and think is great). Converting DC locomotives to DCC is not trivial (especially in N scale). Somtimes its very hard. There are a few locomotives that get damaged if run on DCC. There are some negative issues with DCC in a large club layout.
So there ARE disadvantages to DCC.
Having said all that, and having BOTH DC and DCC, I will say I run DCC almost all the time. You just can't beat being able to have a throttle on ALL locomotives running DCC. It's just GREAT!!
pilot wrote: DC is usually more fault tolerant than DCC. Running pure DC, If I run my DC locomotive into a switch set wrong, it just jams. The other trains, even ones in that power district keep moving. Even the wheels on the jammed locomotive keep churning. With my DCC, all the trains in that power district, and sometimes ALL the power districts on that transformer stop. And sometimes they have to be individually restarted (sometimes not), which means re-throttling and turning the lights back on etc. With DC, you just throw the switch, rerail and go.
This is because of power-routing through the frogs right? Power-routed frogs cause shorts when you run through a switch set against you backwards, DCC or DC, right? And a short shuts down that district, block, or whatever term is applied to it either way right?
Does a DCC system take a while to "reboot" or is it just a flip of the power switch?
pilot wrote: There ARE locomotives that won't run on DCC, LOTS of them. There are even some that won't run on DC on top of DCC (which I have and think is great). Converting DC locomotives to DCC is not trivial (especially in N scale). Somtimes its very hard. There are a few locomotives that get damaged if run on DCC. There are some negative issues with DCC in a large club layout.
This is the one that I worry about... the unknown difficulty in converting N scale locomotives to DCC. At least I don't have a collection of older equipment to worry about (yet). I'm planning to wire my layout in basic blocks that could be used for DC or DCC and hedge my bets :)
Lego_90 wrote: This is because of power-routing through the frogs right? Power-routed frogs cause shorts when you run through a switch set against you backwards, DCC or DC, right? And a short shuts down that district, block, or whatever term is applied to it either way right?
On my DC layout all of my track is handlaid and all of my frogs are scratch built and powered. The powered frogs actually extend about 6 inches past the frog so any locomotive that gets within 6 inches of an improperly thrown turnout will draw a short and stop. This has eliminated all derailments due to improperly thrown turnouts. When this happens I just throw the switch and the train continues on. The rest of the layout functions normally without missing a beat.
I am not sure exactly what happens on a DCC layout when this happens but it involves more than just realigning a switch and I know that on larger layouts that have multiple trains running (6 -12) finding the problem can be very time consuming.
I know this will be a big dissapointment to you, but do you know what happens 99.99% of the time when I run through a turnout on my DCC layout? Nothing, except the usual derailment of a few following cars. Sorry, no shorts, no catastrophic shut down, no sparks, no engines welded to the track.
The other .01% I get a quick hiccup in the system and then everything starts back up where it was with barely a pause. Quite boring, actually.
That is my experience as well, Mike. If a wheel set causes a short, anywhere, the system beeps and shuts down to protect expensive decoders and circuitry. It takes the same amount of time in the analog process of correction for both ways of powering a layout. When I have corrected the fault, the system does a self-restore in two seconds, and I am on my way again.
Even if there is no short, I still have the analog reach to do in order to correct the situation...no diff.
MTennent wrote: I know this will be a big dissapointment to you, ...
I know this will be a big dissapointment to you, ...
Not dissapointed, just misinformed. If you would reread my post you will see I started the paragraph saying "I'm not sure..." I'm just going by what others have told me including one person in this thread.
Why would I be dissapointed?
el-capitan wrote:On my DC layout all of my track is handlaid and all of my frogs are scratch built and powered. The powered frogs actually extend about 6 inches past the frog so any locomotive that gets within 6 inches of an improperly thrown turnout will draw a short and stop. This has eliminated all derailments due to improperly thrown turnouts. When this happens I just throw the switch and the train continues on. The rest of the layout functions normally without missing a beat.I am not sure exactly what happens on a DCC layout when this happens but it involves more than just realigning a switch and I know that on larger layouts that have multiple trains running (6 -12) finding the problem can be very time consuming.
Well, you realign the switch and press a button on the throttle, that's it.
The location of the short, if you enter an improperly set switch, should be as obvious to the engineer with DCC as with DC. When using DCC with a computer, at least in our case, the computer displays the shorted section in yellow on screen, no searching necessary
el-capitan wrote:Stop and stay. They also can radio the dispatcher and ask for clearance.Sure, there are many different operating systems. Train order and ABS to name a few. These two would both lend themselves better to DCC.I was just trying to point out that prototypical operation is possible with a DC block system.
marknewton wrote:Oh, absolutely! And to judge from your posts you've achieved that goal. I only commented because I've seen some DC layouts where the operations were quite unlike anything a real railroad would ever do, but the owners/club members claimed that they were operating prototypically.
Those are Archetypical operations.
SpaceMouse wrote:You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder. You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.I never did more than theorize about this.
Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely?
cjcrescent wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder. You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.I never did more than theorize about this. Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely?
SpaceMouse wrote: You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder. You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.I never did more than theorize about this.
It would be different. The transmitter/receivers are in the radio unit and throttle.
What I am suggesting is putting the transmitter in the engine.
SpaceMouse wrote: cjcrescent wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder. You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.I never did more than theorize about this. Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely? It would be different. The transmitter/receivers are in the radio unit and throttle. What I am suggesting is putting the transmitter in the engine.
RFID technology may get to the point of being useful for this, but it will be a while. The question will possibly be if the benefits are worth the costs.
VailSouthwestern RR wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: cjcrescent wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder. You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.I never did more than theorize about this. Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely? It would be different. The transmitter/receivers are in the radio unit and throttle. What I am suggesting is putting the transmitter in the engine. RFID technology may get to the point of being useful for this, but it will be a while. The question will possibly be if the benefits are worth the costs.
5 Tsunami decoders (HO N or Z scale) $500
5 Stationary Sounds $150
Sounds coming from Stereo Speakers and transmitters can move from loco to loco velcroed underneath.
What do you think?
SpaceMouse wrote: VailSouthwestern RR wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: cjcrescent wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder. You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.I never did more than theorize about this. Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely? It would be different. The transmitter/receivers are in the radio unit and throttle. What I am suggesting is putting the transmitter in the engine. RFID technology may get to the point of being useful for this, but it will be a while. The question will possibly be if the benefits are worth the costs.5 Tsunami decoders (HO N or Z scale) $5005 Stationary Sounds $150Sounds coming from Stereo SpeakersWhat do you think?
Sounds coming from Stereo Speakers
I've been thinking about putting some sound decoders under my (far from complete) n-scale layout for a while, with addresses matching what's up top. I think it would be fun, but I'm not sure the cost is worth it. I think it is a personal decision, for sure. At least at this point there are higher priorities. But, were money no object, that kind of system with RFID tags to keep track of where things are, and where the sound should go would probably be better than n-scale sound in locos, because of the speakers. The tags would also be grat for keeping track of things in hidden areas. The technology os there, but the market is so small I don't know what it will take to make it happen in the real world.
I keep kind of hoping that SoundTraxx will get back to the SurroundTraxx idea, though I have a feeling it was intellectual property issues that might be too much of a pain to fight that stopped it.