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.
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.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
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.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
clang wrote: MTennent wrote: Jeez Tom, What's with the chip on the shoulder? Mike TennentYou are the one with this chip.
MTennent wrote: Jeez Tom, What's with the chip on the shoulder? Mike Tennent
Jeez Tom,
What's with the chip on the shoulder?
Mike Tennent
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
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
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
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?
SNIP
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
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.
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.
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?
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!
"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, Mark, you got me. I now know of one engineman who has to run ahead of his loco to keep things moving.
-Crandell
"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."
Randy,
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.
Mike T.
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 :) )
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.
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.
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.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
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.
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.
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..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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.
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.
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.
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************
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.
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.
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.
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.
Paul,
I was assuming couplers that were automated like those coming out in Europe.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.