el-capitan wrote:Finally, I want one, just one, DCC guy to admit that accidents are more likely on a DCC layout over a DC layout. Even if its only.01% greater, admit that it is more likely. Because I have yet to hear someone with DCC say that.
Honestly, don't know. The only layout I've run both DC and DCC was mine and only ran one loco at time unless they were on separate loops while DCC. Had plenty of mishaps when both my son and I ran on DCC.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
el-capitan wrote: BRAKIE wrote: marknewton wrote: el-capitan wrote: If the engineer fails to stop for whatever reason (inexperience with the rules, not knowing the town names, not paying attention) on my DC layout he will hit the block boundary at the end of the siding and the train will stop, probably causing a short circuit. If my layout where DCC his train would continue on through the siding, into a tunnel where a head-on collision could happen with the oncoming train. This is one of the con's to DCC in "my" bookIn my book this has nothing whatsoever to do with DCC, it's a problem with the operators. Whether it's a DC or DCC layout, bad driving is bad driving...Mark. Absolutely! While theres been 1 or 2 freak DC head ons at the club we have had more then our share of side swipes due to inattentive train handling and ignoring red blocks. I agree. Bad train driving is bad train driving. However, on a DC layout engineers are confined to operate on the section of layout that a dispatcher sets for them. Even my home layout travels through 3 seperate rooms. As the dispatcher I cannot see where every train is but since I have DC I know that train 2 is either operating on one of the blocks that I set for him or he is at a dead stop at a block boundary (I usually keep a block shut off in between trains to avoid rear-ending the train in front.) I do not have this type of control over my layout with DCC.I run 2 rail Oscale. My heaviest steam locomotive is over 12 pounds. I've know people to own steam engines that weigh over 20 lbs. All of my cars weigh close to or over a pound each. When 2 Oscale trains hit head on it's not like 2 matchbox cars bumping into one another. a 40 car train can weigh over 50 lbs. That's alot of mass to be stopping all at once. I tend to want to avoid this.The title of this forum is "The quest for the ultimate Multi-train system". not "101 reasons why DCC is perfect". I love what DCC has done for the hobby. I would probably have it myself if I didn't need to make the choice between spending $1000 to put decoders in all of my locomotives or buy another brass steam locomotive. I just want more. I want to be able to dispatch from my laptop on wi-fi from my backyard. There would be a schematic on my screen of my entire layout. If I click on a turnout, it switches. I would be able to see all of my trains run around on the schematic and know exactly where they are. Maybe GPS locators in each engine and caboose. Come on, I can look on the internet to pinpoint exactly what seat my kid is sitting in at the movie theater because he has a gps cell phone, why can't that technology be used in railroading.Finally, I want one, just one, DCC guy to admit that accidents are more likely on a DCC layout over a DC layout. Even if its only.01% greater, admit that it is more likely. Because I have yet to hear someone with DCC say that.
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.
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
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.
I agree. Bad train driving is bad train driving. However, on a DC layout engineers are confined to operate on the section of layout that a dispatcher sets for them. Even my home layout travels through 3 seperate rooms. As the dispatcher I cannot see where every train is but since I have DC I know that train 2 is either operating on one of the blocks that I set for him or he is at a dead stop at a block boundary (I usually keep a block shut off in between trains to avoid rear-ending the train in front.) I do not have this type of control over my layout with DCC.
I run 2 rail Oscale. My heaviest steam locomotive is over 12 pounds. I've know people to own steam engines that weigh over 20 lbs. All of my cars weigh close to or over a pound each. When 2 Oscale trains hit head on it's not like 2 matchbox cars bumping into one another. a 40 car train can weigh over 50 lbs. That's alot of mass to be stopping all at once. I tend to want to avoid this.
The title of this forum is "The quest for the ultimate Multi-train system". not "101 reasons why DCC is perfect". I love what DCC has done for the hobby. I would probably have it myself if I didn't need to make the choice between spending $1000 to put decoders in all of my locomotives or buy another brass steam locomotive. I just want more. I want to be able to dispatch from my laptop on wi-fi from my backyard. There would be a schematic on my screen of my entire layout. If I click on a turnout, it switches. I would be able to see all of my trains run around on the schematic and know exactly where they are. Maybe GPS locators in each engine and caboose. Come on, I can look on the internet to pinpoint exactly what seat my kid is sitting in at the movie theater because he has a gps cell phone, why can't that technology be used in railroading.
Finally, I want one, just one, DCC guy to admit that accidents are more likely on a DCC layout over a DC layout. Even if its only.01% greater, admit that it is more likely. Because I have yet to hear someone with DCC say that.
Not picking on you as an individual; however, most of this thread is pure BS. You are assuming that block control is only used on DC. It can be used equally well on DCC if you want to. Block control is not related to DC or DCC. It is a means of controlling track power. The actual running of trains is determined by the operation of the DC power pak or the DCC throttle.
I have used DC and now have DCC and will never go back.
Alan_B wrote:[Not picking on you as an individual; however, most of this thread is pure BS. You are assuming that block control is only used on DC. It can be used equally well on DCC if you want to. Block control is not related to DC or DCC. It is a means of controlling track power. The actual running of trains is determined by the operation of the DC power pak or the DCC throttle. I have used DC and now have DCC and will never go back.
Why do I get so much static anytime I point out that DCC is not perfect?
I know what DC is and I know what DCC is. But I have never heard of anyone setting up blocks for separate cabs on a DCC layout. Many people with larger DCC layouts have and should be able to break down large layouts into smaller areas by installing isolation switches to make it easier to find shorts. Other than that every DCC layout I have ever been to has always ran a buss wire the entire length of rail for power.
Are you suggesting I replace my four DC throttles with four separate boosters and run four independant DCC cabs? I wouldn't see the point (aside from better sound and lighting features) of making this huge investment in DCC. Do you know any one who has ever done this? Please explain.
The best two things DCC has going for it are multitrain operation and simple wiring. If you take those things away much of the allure of DCC is lost.
And please keep in mind, the title of this thread is "The quest for the ultimate Multi-train system". I am only trying to point out that DC with block control is not perfect and DCC is likewise not perfect and what I would want in the ultimate system. DCC has done more to help this hobby since electricity was standardized. I know how great it is. I want it better.
Also, I'm not picking on you as an individual, but you are yet another in a long line of DCC faithfuls not able to admit that there is a higher risk of collisions on (non-block) DCC layouts.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
el-capitan wrote: Alan_B wrote:[Not picking on you as an individual; however, most of this thread is pure BS. You are assuming that block control is only used on DC. It can be used equally well on DCC if you want to. Block control is not related to DC or DCC. It is a means of controlling track power. The actual running of trains is determined by the operation of the DC power pak or the DCC throttle. I have used DC and now have DCC and will never go back. Why do I get so much static anytime I point out that DCC is not perfect? I know what DC is and I know what DCC is. But I have never heard of anyone setting up blocks for separate cabs on a DCC layout. Many people with larger DCC layouts have and should be able to break down large layouts into smaller areas by installing isolation switches to make it easier to find shorts. Other than that every DCC layout I have ever been to has always ran a buss wire the entire length of rail for power.Are you suggesting I replace my four DC throttles with four separate boosters and run four independant DCC cabs? I wouldn't see the point (aside from better sound and lighting features) of making this huge investment in DCC. Do you know any one who has ever done this? Please explain.The best two things DCC has going for it are multitrain operation and simple wiring. If you take those things away much of the allure of DCC is lost.And please keep in mind, the title of this thread is "The quest for the ultimate Multi-train system". I am only trying to point out that DC with block control is not perfect and DCC is likewise not perfect and what I would want in the ultimate system. DCC has done more to help this hobby since electricity was standardized. I know how great it is. I want it better. Also, I'm not picking on you as an individual, but you are yet another in a long line of DCC faithfuls not able to admit that there is a higher risk of collisions on (non-block) DCC layouts.
Individual block control, with more than one cab, is the only way to run multiple trains with DC (unless one throttle setting works for more than one engine). Independent control, under DC, can only be obtained with multiple cabs (and therefore multiple blocks). None of this is necessary with DCC.
A good number of DCC run layouts have multiple blocks (sometimes called power districts). My layout has 8 power districts all run from the same power source and all accessible from multiple throttles and all isolated from each other. Only one of them has a switch (I use the switch to switch from operating track to programming track to OFF). I use tail light bulbs as isolators and current limiters. I chose not to install switches for each block. The light bulb is a visual indicator of shorts (opens are obvious from a stopped train with no throttle control). I could use as many districts as I want and could put switches in each.
Unlike DC, I can operate several trains from one throttle, each with different speeds/direction: OR I can use several throttles for several trains.
What you "normally" see is that people realize that the complicated wiring required for DC multi train operation, is not necessary (meaning that it is optional) for DCC. It could be used for DCC; therefore the issue in BS when comparing systems, unless you understand that it is required for DC and optional for DCC.
The beauty of DCC is the simplified wiring that is actually required and the lack of switches needed to run trains. You tend to spend time with the enjoyment of running trains and not with the necessary DC task of operating switches just to keep trains running. Neither system will prevent operator induced errors or problems.
If you want control; you can have it with either system. If you want simplicity and just the enjoyment of running trains, DCC is the best choice.
Alan
I understand the difference in how they work. DCC is much better in most respects. But a power district is much different from a block in how they function. Any engineer running DCC can run his train from one power district to another without the dispatcher knowing. On a block system an engineer can only operate on tracks designated by the dispatcher. DCC takes this control away from the dispatcher (me). I probably have some kind of god complex and I definately have control issues. I get these things by owning expensive equipment that I don't want to see get damaged because of a careless operator.
Please explain to me how I can accomplish these three things simultaneously:
1. Have good multitrain operating system.
2. Be in control of my entire layout from one control panel with 4 operators independantly running trains.
3. run a minimum amount of wire
4. Spend a reasonable amount of money to do this. Remember, if the price goes over $1,200 I will just by a new Santa Fe Mountain from Sunset.
el-capitan wrote: Alan I understand the difference in how they work. DCC is much better in most respects. But a power district is much different from a block in how they function. Any engineer running DCC can run his train from one power district to another without the dispatcher knowing. On a block system an engineer can only operate on tracks designated by the dispatcher. DCC takes this control away from the dispatcher (me). I probably have some kind of god complex and I definately have control issues. I get these things by owning expensive equipment that I don't want to see get damaged because of a careless operator.Please explain to me how I can accomplish these three things simultaneously:1. Have good multitrain operating system.2. Be in control of my entire layout from one control panel with 4 operators independantly running trains.3. run a minimum amount of wire4. Spend a reasonable amount of money to do this. Remember, if the price goes over $1,200 I will just by a new Santa Fe Mountain from Sunset.
You seem to a problem with blocks and power districts. They are one in the same as in identical physical things with different names. A block with a switch (switched block) and a power district with a switch (switched power district) are identical.
Switched blocks do not tell you where trains are nor do they offer any type of control of what trains do; they simply allow/disallow operation of a train that is there. DC or DCC does not matter.
If you like operating with switched blocks; fine with me. If you like for a dispatcher to have control of those switches; again fine with me. DC and DCC are interchangeable under these conditions.
Wrong. A block does not just allow or disallow operation of a train there. A block determines WHAT train operates there. A power district can be shut off but cannot allow one train to run there and disallow another. It's the difference between changing channels and turning off the TV.
If you have a single line block system with blocks named A-B-C-D-E in that order, how do you (with DCC) allow cab 1 to operate on only A&B and cab 2 to operate only on D&E?
el-capitan wrote: Wrong. A block does not just allow or disallow operation of a train there. A block determines WHAT train operates there. A power district can be shut off but cannot allow one train to run there and disallow another. It's the difference between changing channels and turning off the TV. If you have a single line block system with blocks named A-B-C-D-E in that order, how do you (with DCC) allow cab 1 to operate on only A&B and cab 2 to operate only on D&E?
Wrong again. Your block system does not control trains; it only controls operators/cabs. The block you describe has no control over which train is in a block; only who can run a train in that block.
This is my last response to this thread; I have more important things to do.
I don't see a point to arguing the semantics of cabs and blocks, the point you make, which is true, is that all trains within a DC block will be controlled by the same cab/throttle, which should greatly reduce the possibilty of a confield meet.
Well, the obvious 'smart' answer is to train the engineers. But, the technology is there, or nearly so to do what you want. I haven't read all the details, and I don't know how it works, but Digitrax's transponding can locate the trains. The 'all you need' is software in the control station that's smart enough to not allow a loco to move into a zone occupied by another. The algorithm to do this would need to know quite a bit about the layout (another thing the command station doesn't know right now), and some rules for how to operate. I rather expect the pieces to do all of this already exist in different products and homebrews, but it could be quite some time before it hits the point where a user friendly, commercially viable system exists.
I can understand your reasons for preferring this method of operation for the trains you run. I'd never have thought of this as an advantage of DC, but I don't have the same concerns you do. It just points out the truth that there is no one right answer.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Jeff
My intent was never to argue this. I just wanted to point out a concern of mine with DCC. Training operators is a priority but in the end we are all human and do make mistakes. It's good to know that there is someone out there that can realize my critiques are constructive criticisms that are only meant to better the current technology, not bash the people who use it.
SpaceMouse,A lot of computer control is already possible, and in fact 100% automated layouts have been done in the past, even back into the ol' dark days of personal computers and the like. But consider this: to have automated switching operations in a yard, you'd have to have 100% reliablity with your equipment. Couplers would have to work the first time, every time. There could be no derailments, nor could you have even so much as one engine stall. I don't think too many people would want to spend that kind of time and money on perfect operating equipment.
el capitan,The "Who's got my train?" call did result in a few collisions over the years, tho' usually with a bumper post more than with another train.Detection every 6' is overkill, IMHO. Why do you need such tiny blocks? At my club, our blocks are about 15' long, which is about 25 cars plus engines & crummy in HO scale. If your trains are normally 12' long, make your blocks 12' long. The dispatcher can then judge how long they are by seeing if they over hang the 12' block or not.
As for your example for block detection, if you had only 32 instead of 34 detection blocks on your home layout, you could use just two Digitrax BDL168's. BDL168's are only $120 ea. at Tony's (that's $7.50 per block). So instead of spending $1000 for Dallee block detectors, you could be spending only $240...but of course you need DCC to use them (and the BDL168's work with non-Digitrax DCC systems, too).
BTW, what club in Michigan has 6000' of mainline track? Are you counting route miles or track miles? If you have a 4-track RoW, then that makes more sense... BTW, my club is one of the bigger ones around, and our layout room takes up more than 6300 sq ft of our 10,000 sq ft building...and our projected mainlines aren't even close to 6000', and that's with 4 divisions!Our club layout is about 1/3rd complete, with 2 of 6 legs operating, and we have 8 BDL168's running all our mainlines with 128 blocks. Our cost so far: $960.
Midland Pacific,Momentum controls with DCC is relatively straight forward. As you may or may not know, each decoder has "Configuration Variables" or "CV's" that control certain features of the decoder. CV01 is the adress, CV02 is start voltage, CV03 is starting momentum, CV04 is braking momentum, etc. You can program on the mainline (even while the train is moving) and change the momentum CV's whenever you want to. So say you are running light engine in the yard, CV03 and CV04 would be set at low levels. But when you couple up to a train, you can increase these numbers to exaggerate the effect of a loaded train.
As for better braking effects, the QSI decoders have an airbrake feature that is really fun to play with. You set the braking momentum high so that the loco will coast for quite some time. To stop the loco, you have to press and release F7 to activate the air brakes. You'll hear an air release and the brake squeel as the train starts to slow. Press F7 again to leave the braking rate alone, otherwise the loco will continue to slow down at an increasing rate. This can be cancelled by simply speeding back up or pressing the Emergency Stop (which cancels all momentum effects, BTW).
Back to el capitan,The dispatcher on a DC layout confines engineers to operate on the section of layout? How so? On my club's old DC cab control layout, the engineers threw the toggles. They got permission from the Yardmaster and by Timetable & Train Order to leave their terminal with their train, threw the toggles, and powered up. As they left, they'd call the dispatcher to tell them they left at such-and-such a time. The dispatcher had no direct control over the electrical power to the track. He could radio the engineer and tell him to go, stop, take a siding, etc., but he couldn't stop an engineer without shutting the whole RR down.
In fact, here's a picture of ol' Cab No. 7 from my old club, ca. 1978:We had 8 mainline cabs, 12 yard cabs, and 5 branchline cabs. The dispatcher controlled none of them. Oh, he had the authority, but he didn't have any toggle switches in front of him.
BTW, if you have trains that weigh in excess of 50lbs, then why don't you have a TTO system? Or a token system? Or any kind of realistic train control system? Even with DC block control, with items that big and expensive, I know I would want to have some kind of paperwork protection and not just electrical.
As for your view that you want more:Q) You want to be able to dispatch from your laptop on wi-fi from your backyard. A) This can already be done, AFAIK. Railroad & Co. is in Beta right now for their new update that will allow a network of computers to run a layout. So you could have a computer for the dispatcher, and another running a tower or yard, and both would talk to each other and auto update. Adding Wi-Fi on top of that should be easy.Q) You want a schematic on your screen of your entire layout. A) See Railroad & Co. We've been using their software suite on my club layout for several years now, and that has a track schematic of our entire layout.Q) You want to click on a turnout, & it switches. A) Again, see Railroad & Co. I do this every time I'm dispatcher.Q) You want to be able to see all of your trains run around on the schematic and know exactly where they are.A) Well, you can see all the trains run around on the layout schematic, but knowing exactly where they are? To the inch? No. You can tell there's something in the block. You can even tell how fast it's going, what number it is, and several other things with Digitrax Transponding (and even more with the new NMRA Bi-D standards). But knowing where the train is in the specific block? I don't think that's ever going to be possible without NASA's budget.Q) You want GPS locators in each engine and caboose.A) GPS isn't good enough. The circle of error with GPS is still not less than 6", right? That means that it could call out your train's location on the wrong track very easily. However, Digitrax does have Transponding, and one can add Transponders to rolling stock and locos if need by (all Digitrax Series 3 decoders already have Transponders).
And as for your comment that you want just one DCC person to admit that accidents are more likely... Sure, not only will I admit that accidents are more likely, but they are far more likely with DCC than with DC. But then I could say the same thing about slot cars in their guided raceways vs. radio controlled cars and their unlimited freedom. Which is more realistic?
And finally, if you are so concerned with controlling your DCC operators from a central point, keep the block system you have. Hook up all the cabs to one DCC system of your choice. They run the trains in the blocks that you have turned on, you control what blocks are on or off. So in your A-B-C-E-D example, you would have the power on for blocks "A-B" and "E-D", but the power for "C" would be off. Thus keeping an enforced seperation between the trains.
You don't need a seperate booster for each cab. Probably just one for the whole home layout.
Now this isn't how one would normally do things with DCC, as it costs quite a bit extra to wire up DCC and toggle blocks, but it can be done. Especially if you already have the toggle blocks.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
el-capitan wrote:Many people with larger DCC layouts have and should be able to break down large layouts into smaller areas by installing isolation switches to make it easier to find shorts. Other than that every DCC layout I have ever been to has always ran a buss wire the entire length of rail for power.
Many people with larger DCC layouts have and should be able to break down large layouts into smaller areas by installing isolation switches to make it easier to find shorts. Other than that every DCC layout I have ever been to has always ran a buss wire the entire length of rail for power.
Paul,
I was assuming couplers that were automated like those coming out in Europe.
Capt.
I don't know other systems, but with Digitrax, anyone with a DT-400 or a UT-4 can steal a loco. Would that give you the level of control you seek? It's not quite the panic button of shutting down the track.
SpaceMouse wrote: Capt.I don't know other systems, but with Digitrax, anyone with a DT-400 or a UT-4 can steal a loco. Would that give you the level of control you seek? It's not quite the panic button of shutting down the track.
Chip,My ex girlfriend was and is a model railroader and when she wasn't looking I would "steal" her train.
As far as accidents they will happen in DCC without being klutz.. On my short lived around the walls layout I was switching Landmark and checking car numbers as I pulled a cut of covered hopper from Landmark..My girlfriend was switching the yard and of course checking numbers.I continued my reverse move checking numbers she continue to pull forward checking car numbers..LandMark was located on the North side of the yard on its own lead..However this lead join the yard lead and there was clearance for 8 cars and a loco..Got the picture? I pulled 10 cars thinking I still held the yard lead East of the Landmark switch as per Track Form 24a Permit #7..However my time limit had expired and I continued my reverse move resulting in a side swipe with the yard engine..So yeah accidents wil happen.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Spacemouse
Do yourself and the forum a big favor. Please edit the title to this thread and delete the DC. It has become apparent that the DCC guys are ALL KNOWING. They cannot acknowledge that DC has redeeming value. Not even one and here is why.
Wiring is simple when need be for the sake of argument and can be complex if argument dictates. DCCers can have blocks, switches and short finding IF they want it.. Especially when they want to belittle the DC crowd. The rest of the time wiring is easy.
The DC folks in this thread and the forum have been ridiculed, dismissed and treated like second class modelers. We are not.
The most knowledgeable DC person around has no business participating in this tread, his input will always be dismissed. Any fool who runs DCC and this thread has shown a couple to be sure, will be given the utmost in respect for no other reason than he is running DCC. Some folks on this forum by there own admission have no or little knowledge about DC. Actually they have little knowledge about the hobby other than running up post counts. Yet they are the first to point out the lack of any value to DC.
Gee, a first time anonymous poster who comes in late to flame the heck out of bunch of regulars. Hmmm. I smell the scent of Troll...or a sock puppet. Who could it be?
But just in case you aren't a Troll or a sock puppet, Mr. clang, I'm a DCC guy, and here's three DC redeeming values...it's cheaper, you don't have to modify equipment to run with it, and you can always get parts for it.
It's not more realistic. It's not easy to get different brand locos to run together. It's not easy to wire for multi-train operation. There's a lot of things that DC is not.
So what is your complaint with DCC, Mr. Anonymous?
Paul A. Cutler III - yes, my real name!************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Paul3 wrote: Gee, a first time anonymous poster who comes in late to flame the heck out of bunch of regulars. Hmmm. I smell the scent of Troll...or a sock puppet. Who could it be?But just in case you aren't a Troll or a sock puppet, Mr. clang, I'm a DCC guy, and here's three DC redeeming values...it's cheaper, you don't have to modify equipment to run with it, and you can always get parts for it. It's not more realistic. It's not easy to get different brand locos to run together. It's not easy to wire for multi-train operation. There's a lot of things that DC is not.So what is your complaint with DCC, Mr. Anonymous? Paul A. Cutler III - yes, my real name!************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
I have absolutely no complaints about DCC, but right now I would prefer to spend money in other ways. I think anyone who wants to use it has every right to upgrade to it. I am just tired of the way the DC and its users are being portrayed here. That is my complaint.
Not everyone wants his or her full name out on the Internet. Most members are only using a screen name or partial name. I am not a troll or a puppet. You do not call everyone else who joins the forums names that do not include a full name, why me? I could have used Charles Schultz for a name even though it is not. Which long time forum members did I flame?
You make some good points here and the Atlas forum Paul, at least you are looking at things subjectively and not emotionally. I have nothing against you.
Clang, I have nothing against you...I don't know you, I think. But your diatribe above was combative and not constructive. You use absolute and categorical terms in many of your statements; for example, the first was, in my view, quite inflammatory and ridiculed all DCC users, including me. Was it your intent to include me? Please think about that.
It is hard to let go of old ways of doing things. Sometimes it is hard to admit, even to see, how they improve the hobby. The subject of realism is a no brainer to me since DCC has made sound local to a moving engine, and has imparted prototypical realism to entire train movements, without resorting to mechanical switching devices in order to keep the locomotives moving indepedant of continuous route control. Once I line turnouts, usually with a series of reaches into the layout, I can dial up my loco, and set the throttle to let it accelerate out of the yard and negotiate the preset path without any further action. If a short takes place, it will almost always be at a turnout, but that happens rarely. In DC, unless the operator is actively and assiduously manipulating a wide array of mechanical switches as the locomotive moves, there will be a short or an accident....period. I can think of no engineman who has to run ahead of his locomotive and throw mechanical switches to keep his train moving safely. It all happens in the cab, and that is closer to the reality of hand-held DCC control.
Please feel welcome to join in, but try to keep the rancour out of your statements so that we can take what you offer seriously.
Clang,
Since you singled me out, I'll respond. Actually I see both DC and DCC as being limited, just that DC is more limited than DCC. The limits I see with DCC have to do with the standards set forth by the NMRA and the interface. If we compare the evolution of DCC to the computer we are barely out of the machine language phase.
Now the NMRA standards are a good thing in terms of making a uniform system in which all manufacturers can play, but it still represents a wall of sorts. And it also pretty much guarantees that when we move to DCC 2.0 we will have backward compatibility legislated into the new standards.
selector,First NO engineer or conductor throws a switch from a locomotive cab in order to run his train..That doesn't happen.That is pure DCC fantasy..DC operation can be as simple as 2 wires from the power pack to the track for single train operation..Add selectors-very basic block wiring system and you can add blocks.
Larry, I know that...it was my point. In DC you must line the route...no diff there. Once the locomotive is in motion, and if another is nearby, you must begin a series of switch throws to keep things sorted out, almost as if you, the engineman, has to dismount and run ahead of the loco to make sure it is always going to be safe. Not so with DCC. No switches...just enjoyment of watching the trains run.
I may have stated what I wanted to say poorly...I admit that.
selector wrote: Larry, I know that...it was my point. In DC you must line the route...no diff there. Once the locomotive is in motion, and if another is nearby, you must begin a series of switch throws to keep things sorted out, almost as if you, the engineman, has to dismount and run ahead of the loco to make sure it is always going to be safe. Not so with DCC. No switches...just enjoyment of watching the trains run.I may have stated what I wanted to say poorly...I admit that.
I knew you knew that.. Both systems are fantasies though when compared to the prototype. Again for small DC single train layouts 2 wires from the power pack to the track will work and will give you the same basic hands off operation..
I usually operate alone so I set all my switches AHEAD of time to cab A. Chances are they are already set. Then I operate for as long as I wish with out doing any of this.
selector wrote: In DC, unless the operator is actively and assiduously manipulating a wide array of mechanical switches as the locomotive moves, there will be a short or an accident....period.
This portrayal however sure sounds "absolute and categorical" to me. Thank you for making my point so clearly. Could be you are guilty of the very thing you accused me of.
This is exactly the type of nonsense that is being spread about on this thread. Any DC guy knows you don't have to run ahead and constantly do this.
selector wrote: I can think of no engineman who has to run ahead of his locomotive and throw mechanical switches to keep his train moving safely. It all happens in the cab, and that is closer to the reality of hand-held DCC control.
I can think of no engineman who has to run ahead of his locomotive and throw mechanical switches to keep his train moving safely. It all happens in the cab, and that is closer to the reality of hand-held DCC control.
Any real railroader or intelligent railfan knows railroads are not run as you portrayed them here also.
Spacemouse I only singled you out because of the title and Selector I never singled you out either until I responded to your comments.
clang,When you come into a forum, guns a'blazin', don't be surprised to have people shoot back. What did you expect to happen? Geez, you sign up today of all days, you just post on only this one subject, and you use that first ever post to anonymously attack a bunch of people. What made you think that kind of behavior is acceptable? Do you do this at work? Social occasions?
You called us a bunch of fools, you decry some non-existant ridicule of DC users (nice strawman argument, BTW), and then said we had very little knowledge other than to run up post counts. Well, as you can see by my case, I've only got 735 posts over almost 5 years here. That's less than 1 post every two days so I'm hardly a star chaser. And I've been a model railroader since I was 15, a member of my RR club for 14 years (and a member of another now defunct club), and I've built 7 different layouts in five different scales, so I think I've been around the block once or twice.
As far as being anonymous, true enough, most people here do not give out their real names...but then most people don't register on a forum the day they go after a bunch of people. Those that do are usually Trolls or sock puppets (to the uninititated, that's slang for a fake identity used by a forum regular to make it appear that he has people agreeing with him, or to attack people without getting into trouble). Clang, if you aren't a Troll or a sock puppet, then you have my apologies. But you'd probably get this kind of reaction anywhere on the net if you introduce yourself this way.
Personally, I prefer real names as it shows you have the courage of your convictions. But to each their own. I don't normally hold it against people that want to remain anonymous any more, but what you did was classic troll behavior, that I've seen done over and over again in my 11 years on the 'net.
Thanks Paul for making me count them up. It feels impossible that I've been on the NET for just shy of 20 years and posting on forums (called bulletin boards back then) for 17.
selector wrote:It is hard to let go of old ways of doing things. Sometimes it is hard to admit, even to see, how they improve the hobby
It is hard to let go of old ways of doing things. Sometimes it is hard to admit, even to see, how they improve the hobby
I can think of no engineman who has to run ahead of his locomotive and throw mechanical switches to keep his train moving safely.
Jason-Train wrote:I"m using a DC only layout with several blocks and cabs and there are many things I don't like about it.However DCC IMHO is cost prohibitive, this is more than likely a supply demand market / economics issue and DCC will become more cost effective but again IMHO it is too steep for me.Regarding battery power, I don't think this is a good idea. There isn't a battery that can supply enough "juice" for a long session, powering the rails is the only way IMHO.The failure in DCC is the requirement to convert the rails to AC. This was a design flaw from the get go. The technology should have been implemented more along the lines of bluetooth or wifi as these are tested and true and going through constant technology improvements. Why the NMRA felt the need to invent the wheel again IMHO was a mistake.If DCC had been implemented like a TCP/IP network it would have made more sense. There wouldn't have been a requirement to convert to AC. We'd be using a technology that has global standards, etc etc. You could control your train from a bluetooth smartphone :)I'm not in any position to say DCC under its current itteration will fail however it has been pourly designed and frankly it doesn't appear the folks that did design it involved non-hobby technologists. DCC is WAY to freaking sensitive. When I hear about how folks are putting in leads every 3 feet or more, that is rediculus (sp). Compensation for dirty rails or poor design in wire, etc, again a mistake IMHO. If you have to put in leads like that, it should say something about the technology. I'd call a design like this one, crap. You don't hide problems by saturating the condition with non-required components. You do it right from design to implementation resulting in SOLID frameworks. (That said perhaps I'm un-enlightend on why folks put in leads every 3 feet /shurg).All that said, I have not read every page of the DCC NMRA PDF's or every publication so while I've said what I've said, perhaps I'm way off base.that's my 2 un-DCC-educated coppersEDITBefore the thread gets hijacked, I wanted to say, this thread is about DCC as a technology, correct? This isn't about DC / DCC blocks, or helping folks troubleshoot the solution.I'd like folks to debate the point if DCC is the right direction, and/or if it is too late to change. Perhaps I've mis-understood Chips initial post. I had a few guys ninja post while I took the 3 hours to get this post done LOL (posting at work is not so easy :) )
"Yes I was looking at the SPROG home page http://www.sprog-dcc.co.uk/ which has some step by step instructions for connectign the SPROG and don't mention needing to manually send the config information. It just says to download the Java runtimes from Sun, install JMRI, and plug in the SPROG."
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.