Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
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.
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.
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.
el-capitan,Well, that's realism for you. If the engineer misses a red signal, they tend to crash. On my club's old DC layout, we had some big crashes, too, especially when someone would turn on the wrong block or accidently over run a block and the slow train would suddenly leap forward if it didn't short. "Who's got my train?" was a familiar refrain at my old club.
You can set up an ATS (Automatic Train Stop) system on DCC with Digitrax' Transponding and signalling system, or so I understand. This, however, would require a lot of money and time to implement, not to mention a computer to run it all. IOW, not easy.
That being said, on such a large layout you describe, I would think that block detection and signalling is a must...and some training for the engineers.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
el-capitan wrote: .. There has to be some way of having a system that gives the freedom of multi-train operation with some protection from collisions... el-capitan
.. There has to be some way of having a system that gives the freedom of multi-train operation with some protection from collisions...
el-capitan
I have to admit that I have not heard of the idiot factor as a reason for not converting to DCC.
Although I would say that if you don't know where your trains are and what they are doing, you are trying to run too many. I suppose that when the computer interface becomes more widely accepted, we will see automated dispatching systems that will allow you to run your four trains or more with out collisions. Until then, we DCC operators will just have to pay attention.
One thing that has not yet been touched on during this discussion is the biggest reason that I have not switched to DCC. This hobby seems to attract alot of dim-witted people that don't always pay attention to what they are doing while operating trains. With a DC block system, when people are not paying attention and run through a block boundary, the locomotive either shuts off or if that block is being operated by another engineer, the train that has just crossed the boundary will do the same speed and same direction as the train already in that block. With the current DCC system there is no protection from this. There has to be some way of having a system that gives the freedom of multi-train operation with some protection from collisions.
When the club that I belong to went to DCC I debated wether to put DCC in a few of my locomotives. It's a very large club with multiple levels and hidden tracks. After several collisions by people not paying attention I have decided against converting anything of mine. They will never see any of my equipment up there again.
I like alot of the features of DCC but while I am having operating sessions with up to 4 trains running at a time, I like the peace of mind that I get knowing that as the dispatcher I have ultimate control over all 'my' trains on 'my' layout.
As mentioned before, the quest here is to work toward the ultimate multi-train system. The shortcomings of both DC and DCC as I see them.
Programming consists.
Addressing locomotives
In "modern" layouts, turnout control.
In my mind, the next jump in layout/track management will be computer-assisted locomotive management, turnout control and dispatching. These will use the current DCC interface with the trains. Touch screen would be nice.
How much easier would it be if staging yards were controlled by computer--especially if those areas are hidden or in another room?
You have what, 2 or 3 lines? 6 or 9 MRC 9500's plus banks of toggle switches, you think would be SIMPLER than DCC?
Sure you spent a lot on locos - but that's not the fault of DCC. ALl of my locos save 1 cost me $50 or less, plus another $15 or so to install a decoder and change the light bulbs. The one exception is my PCM T-1. And all those locos - not one is a BB type, they are all Stewart, P2K, or Atlas. Careful shopping.
The BLI tender shorting out - well that would short on DC or DCC< so not the fault of DCC there. The drawbar is plastic, dunno how that could cause a short. The cable on the other hand. It should only go in one way, but if it is flipped (shouldn;t be able to do that unless you busted the key on the socket) it would be a dead short because the outer two leads are the track power pickups from the loco back to the tender.
On one hand I like DCC but there is a draw back that is happing to me. The more a DCC engine can do, the more there is to go wrong! This is my F3A and B.
http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j284/cudaken/?action=view¤t=IM000047.flv
Then there my BLI M1a, it shorts out when I hook the draw bar to the tender?
On the other hand my DC BB Athearns PK 2000's and 1000's are pretty straight foward when it comes to repairs.
A bank of MRC 9500's say 3 per line would do the same and easy to block. But all so lot more than a simple DCC system.
Only reason I went DCC is because I went steam. Bachmann GS-4 would only pull around 20 cars. Bought a BLI Class J 611 right before they became a close out and I was hooked on sound, that is why I went DCC.
Do I regreat it, yes and no. But a few months ago a great engine cost $70.00 (PK 2). Now I am looking at $250.00 engines. Of my 40 engine fleet I have spent $2500.00 $1140.00 has been for 4 BLI and F3A and B with sound?
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
Soo Line fan,There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned, and that's the ability in DCC to track down a short by ear.
My 25' x 50' home DCC layout is all one block. If I have a short and it's not obvious what it is (derailed equipment, etc.), then I listen for the distinctive high pitched "bzzt, bzzt, bzzt" noise that the short makes (from the breaker resetting), and I can track it down that way.
At my club, where we also run DCC, the layout is split into many blocks for short circuit protection. And I still have tracked down many a short by merely listening for that "bzzt"...and that's an advantage that DCC has over DC.
Troubleshooting is not the reason for blocks, you know that as much as I. They are used in the areas I mentioned out of necessity to operate a DC layout with many engines on the layout.
I am pointing out that they can be used in a secondary purpose to electrically break up a DC layout into more parts than a DCC layout.
If you cannot understand then your an idiot.
Jim
"Do you block every spur, or every individual yard track? Can you turn off every siding?"
Good Lord, why would I want to? That's why I switched to DCC.
Is your wiring so unreliable that you have to troubleshoot every track section often enough to justify that complexity?
Mike Tennent
From what I can see, the NCE handheld looks similar to one of our automotive scan tools.
What type of data is available on the screen of this unit? Can you see voltage or current data or just the address of the unit you are running? Do all the manufacturers display the same data parameters?
BRAKIE wrote: jbinkley60 wrote: Soo Line fan wrote:Actually his topic can encompass a broad area: SpaceMouse wrote: A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC. One part of DC that does not appeal to me is in my engine terminal. I have a lot of blocks to park locos in different areas and stalls. When I want to get to the engines in the rear I have to move the ones in front. Would jockeying them around be that much easier with DCC?JimAbsolutely. I mentioned this to someone else on a similar thread. It isn't about just running multiple locomotives on a layout, with DC you have to account for all of them, whether they are moving or not. Drop 20 locomotives on a layout with DC, even if many are sitting on sidings and then try to keep straight which block switches you have to change to move the right locomotive. It can be done but it is challenging. A large yard can be worse. Or what happens when you park a string of locomotives together in a yard siding and want to peel the first one out for road service ? NO! It is NOT easier because you have to address each locomotive as you move it..Its not easy on DC either because you got to find vacant blocks to park the moved engines ..In my experience and after being a hostler on a DCC layout I felt like a accountant by the time the session ended..The club layout was design for this type of operation,however, most home layout engine terminals are poorly design for DCC or DC operation which adds to the frustration.
jbinkley60 wrote: Soo Line fan wrote:Actually his topic can encompass a broad area: SpaceMouse wrote: A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC. One part of DC that does not appeal to me is in my engine terminal. I have a lot of blocks to park locos in different areas and stalls. When I want to get to the engines in the rear I have to move the ones in front. Would jockeying them around be that much easier with DCC?JimAbsolutely. I mentioned this to someone else on a similar thread. It isn't about just running multiple locomotives on a layout, with DC you have to account for all of them, whether they are moving or not. Drop 20 locomotives on a layout with DC, even if many are sitting on sidings and then try to keep straight which block switches you have to change to move the right locomotive. It can be done but it is challenging. A large yard can be worse. Or what happens when you park a string of locomotives together in a yard siding and want to peel the first one out for road service ?
Soo Line fan wrote:Actually his topic can encompass a broad area: SpaceMouse wrote: A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC. One part of DC that does not appeal to me is in my engine terminal. I have a lot of blocks to park locos in different areas and stalls. When I want to get to the engines in the rear I have to move the ones in front. Would jockeying them around be that much easier with DCC?Jim
SpaceMouse wrote: A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC.
Absolutely. I mentioned this to someone else on a similar thread. It isn't about just running multiple locomotives on a layout, with DC you have to account for all of them, whether they are moving or not. Drop 20 locomotives on a layout with DC, even if many are sitting on sidings and then try to keep straight which block switches you have to change to move the right locomotive. It can be done but it is challenging. A large yard can be worse. Or what happens when you park a string of locomotives together in a yard siding and want to peel the first one out for road service ?
NO! It is NOT easier because you have to address each locomotive as you move it..Its not easy on DC either because you got to find vacant blocks to park the moved engines ..In my experience and after being a hostler on a DCC layout I felt like a accountant by the time the session ended..The club layout was design for this type of operation,however, most home layout engine terminals are poorly design for DCC or DC operation which adds to the frustration.
Easier is relative to the person makin the judgement. I am not debating that it can be done in DC but recalling an address on a throttle or punching the 4 digit address in (I match mine to the numbers on the locomotive) is pretty simple. If the locomotive says 9255 I either punch it in or hit the recall button back to 9255, which I may have used two functions ago. I do agree that the design of the engine terminal is very important for ease of oepration with any throttle type.
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/
selector wrote: I can't agree that DCC only has an "edge" in some areas. It has it all over DC in the way you operate your trains. No proto engineer is reaching for a multitude of switches to get two locos to hook up for a MU. He notches and watches. In DCC, he notches and watches.In DC, you simply cannot get two locomotives to hook up unless you interfere aprotypically.
I can't agree that DCC only has an "edge" in some areas. It has it all over DC in the way you operate your trains. No proto engineer is reaching for a multitude of switches to get two locos to hook up for a MU. He notches and watches. In DCC, he notches and watches.
In DC, you simply cannot get two locomotives to hook up unless you interfere aprotypically.
I am not referring to operations, clearly DCC has the advantage in the areas you referred to.
Soo Line fan wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Soo Line fan wrote: I tried to give you some analogies to help you understand one of the few advantages I feel DC has over DCC. Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout.Jim I get that smaller blocks make it easier to isolate a short. What I don't get is why turning off a section is better than a light coming on. You asked how many districts I would make on a 4 x 8 and I answered none, truthfully because that's what I did on my layout. That doesn't mean that you can't have power districts or that I should have done it the way I did. I answered as I did. It did not bite me either. Maybe I was lucky. But I can make a power district every bit as small as your division and two poles on a switch is the same soldering as two poles on a light bulb. You most certainly can, but then you loose some of the highly touted advantages of DCC-less wiring, less switches, simpler construction. Would anybody actually build a 4x8 with 10-20 power districts? As I said I believe that DCC has the edge in many areas, but this is not one of them.Jim
SpaceMouse wrote: Soo Line fan wrote: I tried to give you some analogies to help you understand one of the few advantages I feel DC has over DCC. Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout.Jim I get that smaller blocks make it easier to isolate a short. What I don't get is why turning off a section is better than a light coming on. You asked how many districts I would make on a 4 x 8 and I answered none, truthfully because that's what I did on my layout. That doesn't mean that you can't have power districts or that I should have done it the way I did. I answered as I did. It did not bite me either. Maybe I was lucky. But I can make a power district every bit as small as your division and two poles on a switch is the same soldering as two poles on a light bulb.
Soo Line fan wrote: I tried to give you some analogies to help you understand one of the few advantages I feel DC has over DCC. Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout.Jim
I tried to give you some analogies to help you understand one of the few advantages I feel DC has over DCC.
Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout.
I get that smaller blocks make it easier to isolate a short. What I don't get is why turning off a section is better than a light coming on. You asked how many districts I would make on a 4 x 8 and I answered none, truthfully because that's what I did on my layout. That doesn't mean that you can't have power districts or that I should have done it the way I did. I answered as I did. It did not bite me either. Maybe I was lucky.
But I can make a power district every bit as small as your division and two poles on a switch is the same soldering as two poles on a light bulb.
You most certainly can, but then you loose some of the highly touted advantages of DCC-less wiring, less switches, simpler construction. Would anybody actually build a 4x8 with 10-20 power districts?
As I said I believe that DCC has the edge in many areas, but this is not one of them.
In my opinion this is turning a lemon into lemonade. In the rare instance that you have an unexplainabel short, the extra time, effort, and complexity that went into wiring a DC sytem can help you. You r question about whether anyone would put 10-20 powe rdistricts on a 4x8 just proves the point you are trying to argue against. In my opinion. Did I say that was just my opinion?
MTennent wrote: "Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout." Jim, you're comparing apples to onions. You seem to believe that no-one blocks DCC layouts, despite several folks having told you we do.If a DCC layout has blocks, and I'd wager that most of them do, the process is identical. Mike Tennent
"Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout."
Jim, you're comparing apples to onions. You seem to believe that no-one blocks DCC layouts, despite several folks having told you we do.
If a DCC layout has blocks, and I'd wager that most of them do, the process is identical.
Mike I understand that. Are you saying you guys use as many blocks as we use?
Do you block every spur, or every individual yard track? Can you turn off every siding? If not the process is somewhat similar but not identical.
How many blocks would you use on a 4x8?