Okay, Mark, you got me. I now know of one engineman who has to run ahead of his loco to keep things moving.
-Crandell
"Finally, I want one, just one, DCC guy to admit that accidents are more likely on a DCC layout over a DC layout. Even if its only.01% greater, admit that it is more likely. Because I have yet to hear someone with DCC say that."
Well, head on accidents are more likely to happen, that's for sure.
Don't know about "all" accidents, though, especially if you count "someones got my train" as an accident.
Mike Tennent
Okay, I'm throwing my two pennies in here.
Just how MANY trains do we need to run at one time, especially those of us--and I think we're probably a majority--that operate one-person layouts?
When I go out for an operating session on my Yuba River Sub, I think of possibly operating a max of TWO trains at once on the mainline. I can do that on DC. Is DCC going to let me operate three to five or more on a rather complex mountain layout that--though it has a double-track mainline--is actually based upon the protoypical premise of about 15-20 trains per day (and I don't mean Scale Time, whatever that is, but the actual time I spend operating.)? And while these trains are running around the layout, over high bridges and around VERY steep canyons, am I supposed to be able to make up even more trains in my rather limited yard and have helper locos ready at the right spot to be added on or dropped off? Am I supposed to become the Ultimate Multi-Tasker just to say that I'm actually Running A Railroad, when I should be easing back and enjoying watching the trains? Or am I supposed to be continually punching in numbers to make sure that I don't have a $700 brass loco and its compliment of cars derailing and taking a 6' nose-dive off of one of my floor to ceiling cliffs because I was so busy trying to make up a reefer consist in Deer Creek Yard while everything else was going on?
I am SORRY, guys, and you can take all the pot-shots you want, but I am ONE person, and I do ONE thing at a time. I worked for a Multi-Tasker at my other high-school. She never got anything done, and that what WAS done was so sub-standard that I was always cleaning up her mess.
Okay, rant over. I just don't see the advantage of DCC in my life. Nor the electrical headaches I keep hearing about from modelers who have bit the bug and gone for it.
Maybe if I had a Clone, i'd go for it. I'm not.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Jeez Tom,
What's with the chip on the shoulder?
You explained why DC works for you on your layout with two trains. So your quest for the ultimate multi-train system is finished. Cool. No-one has said you have to do anything more.
I operate alone, too, but I have single track and enjoy setting up a meet or pass with a local while another train runs on the main. I have on occasion run three trains all in the same direction, but just for display for visitors.
I have DCC, but like you don't multi-task all that well, but I want to do more. My quest isn't finished.
twhite wrote: Okay, I'm throwing my two pennies in here. Just how MANY trains do we need to run at one time, especially those of us--and I think we're probably a majority--that operate one-person layouts? SNIPI am SORRY, guys, and you can take all the pot-shots you want, but I am ONE person, and I do ONE thing at a time. I worked for a Multi-Tasker at my other high-school. She never got anything done, and that what WAS done was so sub-standard that I was always cleaning up her mess. Okay, rant over. I just don't see the advantage of DCC in my life. Nor the electrical headaches I keep hearing about from modelers who have bit the bug and gone for it. Maybe if I had a Clone, i'd go for it. I'm not. Tom
SNIP
Why would anyone take a pot-shot at you just because you use DC ? If it works for you (and apparently it does) without problems or complications; then go for it. Operating one (sometimes two) loco with one operator is easily done with either DC or DCC (just shut off the blocks with other loco's). This thread is for multi-train comments. Since I quite often operate two engines, I joined in. The only real advantage to DCC in a one man operation (that I can see) is reduced complexity of wiring possible with DCC. I would suspect that "most" of our home layouts are "generally" one man operations (I know that mine is).
For me, DCC allows me to completely forget about blocks and possible problems with loco's that I don't intend to run, but still sit on the layout and ready to go. I simply select the loco(s) that I want to run and do it. I only have to throw the proper turnouts and run the engine. My operating fleet, minus one, is all sound. I find that DCC simplifies the operation and makes things more enjoyable That may not be your experience.
The subject of accidents has been constantly brought up. Accidents are caused by operators (speed, wrong or no turnout, etc.) and normally by inattention to the task at hand; not by the type of operating system (DC or DCC).
Do what works for you and what you enjoy. I, for one, will not try to "convert" you to DCC.
MTennent wrote: Jeez Tom, What's with the chip on the shoulder? Mike Tennent
You are the one with this chip. Right on schedule when a modeler says anything good about DC he is questioned. Heavens to Betsey if a DC guy sticks up for his system. Funny how the DCC guys cannot stand this. Maybe it has something to do with the way we get treated here.
I see where Paul3 apologized for calling me puppet and troll. Thank you
clang wrote: MTennent wrote: Jeez Tom, What's with the chip on the shoulder? Mike TennentYou are the one with this chip.
You are the one with this chip.
Would you please explain to the rest of us where you got the fact that Mike has a "chip" on his shoulder. Mike actually said that it was cool that Tom had found the best multi-operator system for him. I agree.
clang wrote:Right on schedule when a modeler says anything good about DC he is questioned. Heavens to Betsey if a DC guy sticks up for his system.
Again, please show us where Mike said anything that would tell you he was questioning Tom.
clang wrote: Funny how the DCC guys cannot stand this. Maybe it has something to do with the way we get treated here.
I'm a "DCC guy", and it doesn't bother me one bit if you're DC or not. If a person already has a layout built, and wired for his type of operating, I have never advocated him changing, unless he wanted to. After having 7 layouts that were wired for multiple operators, (5-6 on each), in DC, I can't see myself spending the amount of money on the number and types of rotary switches and the extra wiring needed to support the number of operators I'm looking for on the layout I'm currently building, (which can be from just me all the way to 8). A good rotary switch of the type I need, costs alot more than the types of decoders I have in my engines.
clang wrote:I see where Paul3 apologized for calling me puppet and troll. Thank you
I think he may have been hasty.JMO
Carey
Keep it between the Rails
Alabama Central Homepage
Nara member #128
NMRA &SER Life member
Paul3 wrote: Back to el capitan,The dispatcher on a DC layout confines engineers to operate on the section of layout? How so? On my club's old DC cab control layout, the engineers threw the toggles. They got permission from the Yardmaster and by Timetable & Train Order to leave their terminal with their train, threw the toggles, and powered up. As they left, they'd call the dispatcher to tell them they left at such-and-such a time. The dispatcher had no direct control over the electrical power to the track. He could radio the engineer and tell him to go, stop, take a siding, etc., but he couldn't stop an engineer without shutting the whole RR down.
Back to el capitan,The dispatcher on a DC layout confines engineers to operate on the section of layout? How so? On my club's old DC cab control layout, the engineers threw the toggles. They got permission from the Yardmaster and by Timetable & Train Order to leave their terminal with their train, threw the toggles, and powered up. As they left, they'd call the dispatcher to tell them they left at such-and-such a time. The dispatcher had no direct control over the electrical power to the track. He could radio the engineer and tell him to go, stop, take a siding, etc., but he couldn't stop an engineer without shutting the whole RR down.
Not with my layout. Dispatcher controls all track power on the main and in smaller towns. The only exception is for my larger yard which is controlled by the yardmaster for that town.
Paul3 wrote: BTW, if you have trains that weigh in excess of 50lbs, then why don't you have a TTO system? Or a token system? Or any kind of realistic train control system? Even with DC block control, with items that big and expensive, I know I would want to have some kind of paperwork protection and not just electrical.
BTW, if you have trains that weigh in excess of 50lbs, then why don't you have a TTO system? Or a token system? Or any kind of realistic train control system? Even with DC block control, with items that big and expensive, I know I would want to have some kind of paperwork protection and not just electrical.
Not sure what you mean here, please explain. Whatever it is, the block system for my layout so far has resulted in zero bumps, scrapes, or collisions so I am pretty happy with it.
Paul3 wrote: As for your view that you want more:Q) You want to be able to dispatch from your laptop on wi-fi from your backyard. A) This can already be done, AFAIK. Railroad & Co. is in Beta right now for their new update that will allow a network of computers to run a layout. So you could have a computer for the dispatcher, and another running a tower or yard, and both would talk to each other and auto update. Adding Wi-Fi on top of that should be easy.Q) You want a schematic on your screen of your entire layout. A) See Railroad & Co. We've been using their software suite on my club layout for several years now, and that has a track schematic of our entire layout.Q) You want to click on a turnout, & it switches. A) Again, see Railroad & Co. I do this every time I'm dispatcher.Q) You want to be able to see all of your trains run around on the schematic and know exactly where they are.A) Well, you can see all the trains run around on the layout schematic, but knowing exactly where they are? To the inch? No. You can tell there's something in the block. You can even tell how fast it's going, what number it is, and several other things with Digitrax Transponding (and even more with the new NMRA Bi-D standards). But knowing where the train is in the specific block? I don't think that's ever going to be possible without NASA's budget.
As for your view that you want more:Q) You want to be able to dispatch from your laptop on wi-fi from your backyard. A) This can already be done, AFAIK. Railroad & Co. is in Beta right now for their new update that will allow a network of computers to run a layout. So you could have a computer for the dispatcher, and another running a tower or yard, and both would talk to each other and auto update. Adding Wi-Fi on top of that should be easy.Q) You want a schematic on your screen of your entire layout. A) See Railroad & Co. We've been using their software suite on my club layout for several years now, and that has a track schematic of our entire layout.Q) You want to click on a turnout, & it switches. A) Again, see Railroad & Co. I do this every time I'm dispatcher.Q) You want to be able to see all of your trains run around on the schematic and know exactly where they are.A) Well, you can see all the trains run around on the layout schematic, but knowing exactly where they are? To the inch? No. You can tell there's something in the block. You can even tell how fast it's going, what number it is, and several other things with Digitrax Transponding (and even more with the new NMRA Bi-D standards). But knowing where the train is in the specific block? I don't think that's ever going to be possible without NASA's budget.
This all sounds exactly like what I want, but I don't think that it would take nasa's budget. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Nintendo Wii video game system but it is a "next generation" system that uses a motion sensor instead of a joystick type controller. The system knows exactly where the controller is as well as angle, position and speed of the controller. Maybe GPS isn't the way to go but the technology is definately out there. We just need a "Microsoft" to grab hold of it and give us a good package. Don't get me wrong, I hate microsoft but you have to admit that they have standardized the computer world and put out a user friendly operating system that even a dummy like me can use.
Paul3 wrote: Q) You want GPS locators in each engine and caboose.A) GPS isn't good enough. The circle of error with GPS is still not less than 6", right? That means that it could call out your train's location on the wrong track very easily. However, Digitrax does have Transponding, and one can add Transponders to rolling stock and locos if need by (all Digitrax Series 3 decoders already have Transponders).
Q) You want GPS locators in each engine and caboose.A) GPS isn't good enough. The circle of error with GPS is still not less than 6", right? That means that it could call out your train's location on the wrong track very easily. However, Digitrax does have Transponding, and one can add Transponders to rolling stock and locos if need by (all Digitrax Series 3 decoders already have Transponders).
Maybe not GPS. I was just throwing out there as a "what if?"
Paul3 wrote: And as for your comment that you want just one DCC person to admit that accidents are more likely... Sure, not only will I admit that accidents are more likely, but they are far more likely with DCC than with DC. But then I could say the same thing about slot cars in their guided raceways vs. radio controlled cars and their unlimited freedom. Which is more realistic?
And as for your comment that you want just one DCC person to admit that accidents are more likely... Sure, not only will I admit that accidents are more likely, but they are far more likely with DCC than with DC. But then I could say the same thing about slot cars in their guided raceways vs. radio controlled cars and their unlimited freedom. Which is more realistic?
Finally someone admits it. My respect for you just whent up by ten. I am all for realism, but not at the expense of my brass. That's why I brought all this up, I want the realistic operation without the risks.
Paul3 wrote: And finally, if you are so concerned with controlling your DCC operators from a central point, keep the block system you have. Hook up all the cabs to one DCC system of your choice. They run the trains in the blocks that you have turned on, you control what blocks are on or off. So in your A-B-C-E-D example, you would have the power on for blocks "A-B" and "E-D", but the power for "C" would be off. Thus keeping an enforced seperation between the trains.
And finally, if you are so concerned with controlling your DCC operators from a central point, keep the block system you have. Hook up all the cabs to one DCC system of your choice. They run the trains in the blocks that you have turned on, you control what blocks are on or off. So in your A-B-C-E-D example, you would have the power on for blocks "A-B" and "E-D", but the power for "C" would be off. Thus keeping an enforced seperation between the trains.
This is a great point. I thought about this over the weekend. I really couldn't use my current block configuration. However, I always planned on putting in a signaling system if I went to DCC, maybe even with DC. Each signal would be controlled by a relay that is locally mounted near the signal. If I get relays with enough contacts and capable of handling 18V, I could wire in a 12" section of track at the signal that would be shut down when both west and east signals are red.
Thanks for all the comments Paul. This is exactly what I was tring to get out of posting in this thread.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
Capt.
FYI: In an earlier post I suggested a engine location system that used a radio transmitter and locater for detection. It would need a computer system. The locater is located beneath the layout (closer to the floor the better) and the track plan is coded into the computer. The computer compares the direction of the transmitter to the track plan and establishes the engines location. Block detection still might be needed for yards.
I came up with this on my quest to pull sound out of the engine and put it into the environment--stereo sound through the home sound system. But there is no reason why this type of locater system can't be used for dispatching purposes.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
There have been a few comments over the weekend that block control cannot be prototypical because engineers in real life do not have to get out of their cabs to throw switches. Let me explain how my layout works.
A dispatcher sits at a panel that has selector switches for routing power from each cab to each block. There are also toggle switches for each turnout on the main line. The dispatcher conducts the railroad much like a conductor of a symphony, he's not blowing into the french horn, he's just letting the french horn player know when to blow. The dispatcher tells trains where they are allowed to go and when. This is how a real railroad with CTC works and how my railroad works. The only difference is, after a dispatcher on my railroad clears a freight into rincon, he throws a selector switch to route power. The engineer just drives his train.
Now in the smaller towns where CTC is not available, there are also no automated turnouts. While the dispatcher still needs to route power to this town, he has no control over the switches. The fireman or brakeman would exit the cab or caboose and throw the switches. This is true for my layout and also for the big boys.
The only areas that I can see DCC would lend to more realistic operation is in a large yard where you may have several separate locomotives operating in close proximity to each other. Even then, with the proper block configuration and a savvy yard master, this can be overcome with DC block control.
And please don't respond with DC bashing. I just wanted to explain how my layout operates and show that it is pretty close to the prototype.
SpaceMouse wrote: Capt.FYI: In an earlier post I suggested a engine location system that used a radio transmitter and locater for detection. It would need a computer system. The locater is located beneath the layout (closer to the floor the better) and the track plan is coded into the computer. The computer compares the direction of the transmitter to the track plan and establishes the engines location. Block detection still might be needed for yards.I came up with this on my quest to pull sound out of the engine and put it into the environment--stereo sound through the home sound system. But there is no reason why this type of locater system can't be used for dispatching purposes.
This technology sounds like it will work. Unfortunately I am not tech-geeky enough to be able to implement it on my layout. I know how to use toggle switches and relays and most of the time I can remember that red is positive (although I have no idea why I need to know that). Computer code and binary numbers are way above me. This being said I can still start up windows and create a document in word without being a tech geek. What I am looking for is the "Microsoft Model Railroad Control Package" or some such thing. A package that is user friendly that is plug and play and will control a layout as a whole.
"What I am looking for is the "Microsoft Model Railroad Control Package" or some such thing. A package that is user friendly that is plug and play and will control a layout as a whole."
Capt,
I think the packages are out there, but the "user friendly" part depends a lot on the user.
The biggest problem, of course, is that everyone's layout is different, so any program has to be flexible. There will always be a need to specificly set up a system for your layout. That adds a lot of complexity. It shouldn't involve writing code or binary numbers, but if you have more than a simple oval, it gets complicated.
Systems like CMRI and JMRI have the basic things you want, but setting them up to control a layout is still more than simple plug n play.
Perhaps the ideal program would let you draw your layout ala the existing CAD programs and the program would then generate the specs and operating software, screen, etc for your system. It could tell you where you'd need sensors, blocks, wiring diagrams etc. depending on what you wanted to do.
It's a shame part of this thread has taken on a DC vs DCC tilt, because the "ultimate" control program can be operating system independent. If you look at what is needed - train location sensing and automation, its irrelevant how you control the engines. You are still locating engines, setting their speed, setting speed and stops, setting turnouts for routes, etc. Whether that's done via a cab block system or DCC is irrelevant, a computer can handle that detail.
"Would you please explain to the rest of us where you got the fact that Mike has a "chip" on his shoulder. Mike actually said that it was cool that Tom had found the best multi-operator system for him. I agree."
Thanks carey,
My first reaction to that post was aggravation, but then I realized who wrote it.
Mtennant,
Yes everyones layout is different. Here's how I would envision it working. You load the program on your computer and a sensor in a locomotive. You run the program and there is a button called "learn layout". After clicking on this buton you run the locomotive (DCC or DC) over every foot of track on your layout. The computer is tracking this movement and creating a schematic of your layout. When complete drop a sensor in all of your locomotives and cabooses and you can track all trains on your layout.
Similar things could be done for turnout control, signal control, etc.
If I had the brains to make this work it would already be on the market.
Chip/Capt,
Both of you refer to sensors in an engine, but I wonder if it might be best to think of transmiters in the engine.
My understanding of location sensing thingees are that they are based on triangulation of a signal.
For our purposes, a transmitter in an engine would send a signal to 3 or 4 our sensors around the room that were hooked to a computer. The computer would do the triangulation and act on the result.
If the sensor was in the engine, it would have to sense a signal from multiple transmitters, compute it onboard, and then send the results out again (by air or rail.) I think that technology would be more difficult and prone to error. Opinions?
Chip: did you ever locate a radio system for sound like you refer to? I vaguely remember then thread, but not the result.
Here is one guy that has BOTH DC and DCC, and DC "on top of" DCC. Either DC or DCC one at a time (I have to unplug my DCC and plug in my DC). I mostly use DCC. I can use DCC and DC "on top of" DC at the SAME time however. So I can run my DCC engines and ONE DC engine, all with their own throttle.
I can see why guys who have been using DC and have large collections of DC locomotives. It's not easy to convert, especially in N scale. (I cant even figure out how to open up some of my engines). Also, when someone comes over and brings their DC engine, I can have DC so I KNOW I wont damage it.
I primarily went to DCC becuase I have reversing loops.
Also, large layouts have special issues. DC may actually be better in some cases. Being able to run two engines in the same power district with seperate throttles and seperate reversing controls is NOT always an advantage.
Theres a lot of choices out there. Lots of great items to explore.
CSX Robert wrote:After reading through this topic, I had to add my two cents worth. The "DC versus DCC" debate is a lot like the "which DCC system" debate in that a lot of people get tied up in which is better. Neither is inherently better, the real question is which is better for me. I love DCC, but for me to say that there are no advantages to DC and that every DC user should switch to DCC (which is the attitude that SOME DCC users have) would be ridiculous. I believe DCC control to be more prototypical, but we are not running real trains and more prototypical is not necessarily better.I wouldn’t consider myself an expert but I think I have a fairly good understanding of DCC and I know a lot about computers (I am a Computer Programmer by trade). I am not going to say that DCC is perfect, but it is much more suited to model train control than WIFI or Bluetooth. The NMRA did not “invent the wheel again.” They based the DCC standards on a system that was “tested and true” that was developed by Lenz before WIFI or Bluetooth.The reason for the DCC waveform (I’m not going to get into the “is it or is it not AC” argument here) is to provide power and control signals over the two rails. It is not necessary to put leads every 3 feet. I had a 4’ x 16’ unitrack test loop powered from one set of leads. I did have a significant voltage drop at the far end of the loop, but that would have been true for DC control also. I did not have any trouble with operation however.
My comment for bluetooth and wifi was re: "todays" technology. Eithernet was around before NMRA (if not, then ArcNet sure as heck was and you can run 10baseT over arcnet cat3 cable). Knowing they (NMRA) used a "solution" from an existing (LENZ) manufacuturer in a sense proves my point. They didn't think out of the box, they just went with the flow. Had they looked to technology with a list of criteria instead of partnering with an existing provider, perhaps the end solution would have been something extensible, standard, not bound to just MRR (i.e. bridging a gap across hobbies).
Someone else posted such that if a future solution were to become available, it would "have" to be compatible with existing DCC. I wouldn't bank on that. They somewhat scrapped DC for DCC did they not? The creation of something new and better doesn't make it required for backward compatibility.
I'm a DC guy, I see the pro's and con's of both. In some ways I would like DCC on my layout, I'm not part of a club, I'm a guy in my basement enjoying the hobby. It worries me to know, and CSX Robert and Chip clarified this somewhat for me, NMRA used an existing tech. instead of makeing a new one.
Think about this, it is in the best interests of manufacuters to keep us all guessing. Why would any manufacturer invent a new better solution that is backwards compatible, that makes poor business sense. I'm not saying drop DCC off the map, I'm saying force the hobby enthusiest to buy new as often as is tollerable.
Look at it this way, it took how long for DCC to get a foot hold (not it's birth, but have x% of the market)? I'd guess it would be about half that time to find something new and better. It will happen, it is just a matter of when.
DC nor DCC is the best it "can" be. Every train manufacturer is banking on that.
I don't know if the boards have a "Poll" option but I would be the majority of "posters" here are DCC.
If the poll had the three choices Chip had in his title
DC
DCC
The quest for something better
I'd be picking "The quest for something better".
/ramble off
You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder.
You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.
I never did more than theorize about this.
MTennent wrote: Chip/Capt,Both of you refer to sensors in an engine, but I wonder if it might be best to think of transmiters in the engine. My understanding of location sensing thingees are that they are based on triangulation of a signal. For our purposes, a transmitter in an engine would send a signal to 3 or 4 our sensors around the room that were hooked to a computer. The computer would do the triangulation and act on the result. If the sensor was in the engine, it would have to sense a signal from multiple transmitters, compute it onboard, and then send the results out again (by air or rail.) I think that technology would be more difficult and prone to error. Opinions?Chip: did you ever locate a radio system for sound like you refer to? I vaguely remember then thread, but not the result. Mike Tennent
clang wrote: MTennent wrote: Jeez Tom, What's with the chip on the shoulder? Mike TennentYou are the one with this chip. Right on schedule when a modeler says anything good about DC he is questioned. Heavens to Betsey if a DC guy sticks up for his system. Funny how the DCC guys cannot stand this. Maybe it has something to do with the way we get treated here. I see where Paul3 apologized for calling me puppet and troll. Thank you
Clang--
Actually, I don't think Mike was dissing me at all. I DID come on a little strong in my post, and he mentioned that if DC worked fine for me, to keep at it. So I'm not bothered by his answer--in fact it was pretty well thought out, IMO.
It's just that the DC/DCC thing has kind of gotten under my skin, most recently at my LHS, where one of the guys was as much as telling me that if I DIDN'T go DCC, I'd be sort of like those dinosaurs, just waiting for the Big Comet to strike. I asked him if he'd like to help fund the conversion for my 45 or so brass locos, and his answer was--"You actually RUN brass?" Kind of ticked me off. He's new there, hopefully the other guys will set him straight, LOL!
In the meantime, two trains is about all my mind can handle. I'll stick with what I've got.
Oh, by the way, I'm a little confused with the term 'Block' as used in this DC/DCC discussion. I hear about not using 'blocks' in DCC because they are not needed. Now I use a 'block' system on the Yuba River sub, but I use it in what I thought was the original prototypical application--a set of signals at certain intervals to let the train know whether to stop or proceed. My 'blocks' are set up to contain at least a 30-car train (the maximum number of cars I operate), and if the signal ahead is set for red, I stop the train until the signal is cleared for green. Is this what a 'block' means in model railroad parlance? I always thought it did. In fact, it seems to me that even in DCC, one would want to set his railroad up into 'blocked' sections, simply because it's what the real railroads do.
Can anyone clarify this for me?
Best,
Your definition of a block is correct but there are more than one meaning. I should have termed mine "electrical block". My electrical blocks on my DC layout work in much the same manner that you were describing and at the end of most of them there will be a signal. Each of these blocks or sections of track have a separate toggle switch on my dispatchers panel. I have 4 throttles that can each have their power routed to any of my blocks. For instance, if I have a five block single track with the following names A-B-C-D-E and train one is in block C I route power for cab 1 to block C and to D. Train 1 can then move to block D. Once he is clear of block C, I can route train 2 (who was sitting in block B) to follow train 1 into block C. Blocks on my layout are simply sections of track operating off the same toggle switch. Only one train can be in a block at one time (unless someone is not paying attention). Most DCC layouts will have blocks but not electrical blocks. Since multiple trains can operate simultaneously they do not have the need for toggle switches and selecting cabs but many do have signals.
Hopefully you are not more confused now than when you asked the question.
el-capitan wrote:I just wanted to explain how my layout operates and show that it is pretty close to the prototype.
I just wanted to explain how my layout operates and show that it is pretty close to the prototype.
Stop and stay. They also can radio the dispatcher and ask for clearance.
Sure, there are many different operating systems. Train order and ABS to name a few. These two would both lend themselves better to DCC.
I was just trying to point out that prototypical operation is possible with a DC block system.
Being new to the hobby and still being open to making the decision to go DC or DCC, I found this thread highly interesting and enlightening. I know its beating a dead horse to some of you, but I was glad to have it to read through.
I think some of the clash between the two camps is in the definition of "ultimate" or "best". To some, cost is the biggest factor. To others, ease of construction may be paramount. Still others, flexibility of operation is their primary goal. And finally, I'm sure there are quite a few that are familiar with one style and would rather not learn a different one, be it new or old. I think you, the model railroader, need to evalutate your goals versus the traits of each and go that direction. Afterall, to borrow the excellent analogy, slot car racing and RC car racing are still both going strong.
With that said, operationally speaking and assuming cost and a construction are non-issues, I don't see what DC can do that DCC can't. DCC can certainly be wired to switches and in blocks like DC if that provides a desired benefit. In DC it may be required to run multiple trains, but it doesn't mean you can't get it's side benefits in DCC. DCC merely has the flexibility to let you do it either way. It's your layout, wire it how you please.
And please, PLEASE don't invite Microsoft to design the next generation of train control. It'll come with a thousand features you'll never use (including solitaire!), at least 1 of the features you do want to use won't work right, and it will consume every amp of spare energy your wiring can support. And I don't even want to see the equivalent of the blue screen of death in model railroading! :)
DC is usually more fault tolerant than DCC. Running pure DC, If I run my DC locomotive into a switch set wrong, it just jams. The other trains, even ones in that power district keep moving. Even the wheels on the jammed locomotive keep churning. With my DCC, all the trains in that power district, and sometimes ALL the power districts on that transformer stop. And sometimes they have to be individually restarted (sometimes not), which means re-throttling and turning the lights back on etc. With DC, you just throw the switch, rerail and go.
There ARE locomotives that won't run on DCC, LOTS of them. There are even some that won't run on DC on top of DCC (which I have and think is great). Converting DC locomotives to DCC is not trivial (especially in N scale). Somtimes its very hard. There are a few locomotives that get damaged if run on DCC. There are some negative issues with DCC in a large club layout.
So there ARE disadvantages to DCC.
Having said all that, and having BOTH DC and DCC, I will say I run DCC almost all the time. You just can't beat being able to have a throttle on ALL locomotives running DCC. It's just GREAT!!
pilot wrote: DC is usually more fault tolerant than DCC. Running pure DC, If I run my DC locomotive into a switch set wrong, it just jams. The other trains, even ones in that power district keep moving. Even the wheels on the jammed locomotive keep churning. With my DCC, all the trains in that power district, and sometimes ALL the power districts on that transformer stop. And sometimes they have to be individually restarted (sometimes not), which means re-throttling and turning the lights back on etc. With DC, you just throw the switch, rerail and go.
This is because of power-routing through the frogs right? Power-routed frogs cause shorts when you run through a switch set against you backwards, DCC or DC, right? And a short shuts down that district, block, or whatever term is applied to it either way right?
Does a DCC system take a while to "reboot" or is it just a flip of the power switch?
pilot wrote: There ARE locomotives that won't run on DCC, LOTS of them. There are even some that won't run on DC on top of DCC (which I have and think is great). Converting DC locomotives to DCC is not trivial (especially in N scale). Somtimes its very hard. There are a few locomotives that get damaged if run on DCC. There are some negative issues with DCC in a large club layout.
This is the one that I worry about... the unknown difficulty in converting N scale locomotives to DCC. At least I don't have a collection of older equipment to worry about (yet). I'm planning to wire my layout in basic blocks that could be used for DC or DCC and hedge my bets :)
Lego_90 wrote: This is because of power-routing through the frogs right? Power-routed frogs cause shorts when you run through a switch set against you backwards, DCC or DC, right? And a short shuts down that district, block, or whatever term is applied to it either way right?
On my DC layout all of my track is handlaid and all of my frogs are scratch built and powered. The powered frogs actually extend about 6 inches past the frog so any locomotive that gets within 6 inches of an improperly thrown turnout will draw a short and stop. This has eliminated all derailments due to improperly thrown turnouts. When this happens I just throw the switch and the train continues on. The rest of the layout functions normally without missing a beat.
I am not sure exactly what happens on a DCC layout when this happens but it involves more than just realigning a switch and I know that on larger layouts that have multiple trains running (6 -12) finding the problem can be very time consuming.
I know this will be a big dissapointment to you, but do you know what happens 99.99% of the time when I run through a turnout on my DCC layout? Nothing, except the usual derailment of a few following cars. Sorry, no shorts, no catastrophic shut down, no sparks, no engines welded to the track.
The other .01% I get a quick hiccup in the system and then everything starts back up where it was with barely a pause. Quite boring, actually.