That is my experience as well, Mike. If a wheel set causes a short, anywhere, the system beeps and shuts down to protect expensive decoders and circuitry. It takes the same amount of time in the analog process of correction for both ways of powering a layout. When I have corrected the fault, the system does a self-restore in two seconds, and I am on my way again.
Even if there is no short, I still have the analog reach to do in order to correct the situation...no diff.
MTennent wrote: I know this will be a big dissapointment to you, ...
I know this will be a big dissapointment to you, ...
Not dissapointed, just misinformed. If you would reread my post you will see I started the paragraph saying "I'm not sure..." I'm just going by what others have told me including one person in this thread.
Why would I be dissapointed?
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
el-capitan wrote: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.
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.
Well, you realign the switch and press a button on the throttle, that's it.
The location of the short, if you enter an improperly set switch, should be as obvious to the engineer with DCC as with DC. When using DCC with a computer, at least in our case, the computer displays the shorted section in yellow on screen, no searching necessary
Regards,
ArtZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net
el-capitan wrote: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.
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.
marknewton wrote:Oh, absolutely! And to judge from your posts you've achieved that goal. I only commented because I've seen some DC layouts where the operations were quite unlike anything a real railroad would ever do, but the owners/club members claimed that they were operating prototypically.
Those are Archetypical operations.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse wrote: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.
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.
Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely?
Carey
Keep it between the Rails
Alabama Central Homepage
Nara member #128
NMRA &SER Life member
cjcrescent wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: 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. Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely?
SpaceMouse wrote: 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.
It would be different. The transmitter/receivers are in the radio unit and throttle.
What I am suggesting is putting the transmitter in the engine.
SpaceMouse wrote: cjcrescent wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: 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. Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely? It would be different. The transmitter/receivers are in the radio unit and throttle. What I am suggesting is putting the transmitter in the engine.
RFID technology may get to the point of being useful for this, but it will be a while. The question will possibly be if the benefits are worth the costs.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
VailSouthwestern RR wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: cjcrescent wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: 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. Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely? It would be different. The transmitter/receivers are in the radio unit and throttle. What I am suggesting is putting the transmitter in the engine. RFID technology may get to the point of being useful for this, but it will be a while. The question will possibly be if the benefits are worth the costs.
5 Tsunami decoders (HO N or Z scale) $500
5 Stationary Sounds $150
Sounds coming from Stereo Speakers and transmitters can move from loco to loco velcroed underneath.
What do you think?
SpaceMouse wrote: VailSouthwestern RR wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: cjcrescent wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: 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. Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely? It would be different. The transmitter/receivers are in the radio unit and throttle. What I am suggesting is putting the transmitter in the engine. RFID technology may get to the point of being useful for this, but it will be a while. The question will possibly be if the benefits are worth the costs.5 Tsunami decoders (HO N or Z scale) $5005 Stationary Sounds $150Sounds coming from Stereo SpeakersWhat do you think?
Sounds coming from Stereo Speakers
I've been thinking about putting some sound decoders under my (far from complete) n-scale layout for a while, with addresses matching what's up top. I think it would be fun, but I'm not sure the cost is worth it. I think it is a personal decision, for sure. At least at this point there are higher priorities. But, were money no object, that kind of system with RFID tags to keep track of where things are, and where the sound should go would probably be better than n-scale sound in locos, because of the speakers. The tags would also be grat for keeping track of things in hidden areas. The technology os there, but the market is so small I don't know what it will take to make it happen in the real world.
I keep kind of hoping that SoundTraxx will get back to the SurroundTraxx idea, though I have a feeling it was intellectual property issues that might be too much of a pain to fight that stopped it.