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.
Some members of the forum insist that anything that can be done with multi-trains on DCC can be done with a little thought and DC. That the programming of consists and stitching road-numbers on the keypads is every bit as complex as running trains through multiple cabs and power blocks.
My personal opinion is that we are just on the beginnings of the rise of DCC technology, and that the NMRA standards have a lot of room for expansion. I also foresee that as other systems like DCS push beyond the common ground of the DCC standards, that the NMRA will have to find a way to leave the original standards behind.
However, DCC for all it's limits, seems far more versatile than DC in it's current state of technology.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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have the answer if I did I would design it,have it produce,package it and sell it..I fully believe both DC and DCC is outdated technology in todays high tech world.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.)
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.