selector wrote:I don't understand your premise. Please develop it further for this dimwit.
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.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
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.
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.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
"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).
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
"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.
Mike Tennent
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.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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.