 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / September 2006DCC - why not?
For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? Is it because your layout is already operating fine with conventional power; the cost of converting; the effort to convert your existing locos; your club has decided not to use DCC; etc.? Do you think DCC is in you future? ... already planning to do a conversion in the future; maybe you will convert if the price is right; you might do it if the time is available; don't want to mess with a system that's already working; etc.? The recent thread on MTH's entry into HO scale with a non-DCC system has me wondering how saturated the DCC market has become. Has everyone who would have been likely convert to DCC already made the change? Are there many more modelers out there waiting for the right time to make the switch? I'd like to see opinions from the non DCC modelers/operators. __________ Mark Mathu The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/ "I started out with nothing and I still have most of it." >For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? An interesting questions. Here are some of my random thoughts. * The four digit numbering system for locos isn't a good fit for the loco rosters on many foreign railways, and there isn't always a logical/simple translation (some European systems are working around this already) * A large slice of our layout operation is at exhibitions, and adding DCC makes this sort of operation more complex and more work each time a train is changed. (with DC its change the points, set speed direction and you're off. With DCC it's the above plus drop the current train, select the next train. Not something I can literally do with my hands behind my back) * Lack of a DCC retailer within 500km of here (except the Bachmann system . . .) * Lack of a suitable handset for some roles in certain systems * Lack of licensing to use the radio capability of certain systems * I'd be lying if I didn't say price was an issue. Not so much the base units but the outlay to equip the whole fleet over the first few months, and the desire to use not the base level decoders (or are these OK??) Having said that, all new layout work for the last 5 years has been done to allow easy conversion to DCC when the time comes. I've done a lot of thinking and planning, and came close to handing over the Visa card last month (except the shop only had 5 suitable decoders on the shelf when I wanted 20 straight up!). May consider it before March next year, but that will be more on the basis of doing it while I can afford it rather than because I see any major benefit in the immediate term. I suspect I'll be the first in the local group to go, and that the others will follow within the next 12-18 months with the same system, so I'm choosing for them too in many ways. I see this is the way to go, and for many layouts/groups will make life easier. On the other hand, its not the solution for everybody and they shouldn't be "punished" (in whatever way) for their modeling choices Regards, Stuart Dix Hobart, Tasmania, Australia > * The four digit numbering system for locos isn't a good fit for the > loco rosters on many foreign railways. Stu: Yup, I can see the trouble with reducing something like 141R.72001 to a four digit code. "Fhat? Ze Americain systeme electronique das naht fit ze Gallique systeme tres logique? By ze holy zacraments!" (Heh heh. SNCF froods will note intentional irony in the class no.) I don't have an operating layout now (sigh) as I have been hard at work fixing up an old house, but when I do I won't use DCC. I have a philosophical dislike of complexity and layers of separation between operator and equipment. Yes, I can already hear you saying 'But isn't the multitude of block switches a worse layer of separation? With DCC you just pick it up and go." Well, call me a techno-Luddite then. I have other reasons. First, I like smaller locos, and it's hard enough to fit the motor in a HO early 4-4-0. Second, in the interests of economy and more Luddism I model a small shortline, so I don't have many engines or many trains to run simultaneously. Finally, DCC introduces problems of electrical contact and short avoidance (through flawed and non-robust engineering, IMHO) that are less of a problem using straight track power. I just can't justify the expense for my purposes. Cordially yours: Gerard P. > First, I like smaller locos, and it's hard enough to fit the motor in a > HO early 4-4-0. A fellow club member is putting them in his TT equipment, and our HOn3 is going to be DCC. While I agree it's harder, it's not impossible. > Second, in the interests of economy and more Luddism > I model a small shortline, so I don't have many engines or many trains > to run simultaneously. I've always said that a one train/one operator layout won't see much benefit from DCC. But once you start adding trains and/or operators, then DCC should be a serious consideration. > Finally, DCC introduces problems of electrical > contact and short avoidance (through flawed and non-robust engineering, > IMHO) that are less of a problem using straight track power. Sorry, but that's poppycock. The only difference between straight DC and DCC is that you can't power through a short. And quite frankly, if you see sparks shooting from your wheels with DC, you really should fix that problem. > I just > can't justify the expense for my purposes. That is the only reason you gave that I agree with 100%. It's in each person's mind what's worth what. If it ain't worth it for you, well, then it's not worth it. What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that are just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* > What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that are > just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Weather Or No Go New Haven > ************* No doubt that's the same feeling of merriment that I get when DCC proponents (especially those who've never built a DC layout) explain to me all the things that I can't do with DC - except, usually I can. ron  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that are > > just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (especially those who've never built a DC layout) explain to me all the > things that I can't do with DC - except, usually I can. Well, I built two multi-cab DC layouts for myself, and operated and maintained a 2500 sq. ft. layout at my club that was DC (built 1953, added on in 1980). So I'm quite familiar with most of the problems, issues, and tribulations that occur with a cab controlled DC layout. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* > What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that are > just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL My favourite is that old reliable comment, "I have 200+ locomotives - it would cost too much to buy and fit decoders to convert them to DCC!" And yet it didn't cost too much to buy 200+ locomotives in the first place? LOL! Mark. > > What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that are > > just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And yet it didn't cost too much to buy 200+ locomotives in the first > place? LOL! Oh, god, that brings me back. I made the same comment on the Atlas Forum many moons ago, and I thought I was going to be drawn and quartered after being hanged...especially by David Harrison. I said I had far more sympathy for the guy that has a couple locos that says he can't afford DCC then the guy that has 200 locos who can obviously afford a great deal more. You would have thought I poked him in the eye by the response I got. Jeez. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* > Oh, god, that brings me back. I made the same comment on the Atlas > Forum many moons ago, and I thought I was going to be drawn and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > afford a great deal more. You would have thought I poked him in the > eye by the response I got. Jeez. I can imagine! Mind you, I'm buggered if I know why anyone would *want* 200+ locos - how often would most of them get a run? Cheers, Mark. >> > What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that are >> > just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > then the guy that has 200 locos who can obviously afford a great deal more. > You would have thought I poked him in the eye by the response I got. Jeez. The problem with having been around long enough to collect 200+ loco's (all of which you might enjoy running from time to time) is that some if them could be very difficult to convert to DCC. Several club members, who have far fewer than 200 (combined) loco's will never convert entirely to DCC for just this reason. Looking here at the total cost of conversion (TCC :) not just the $$. Thus the club will, most likely, never convert totally to DCC. So we are stuck running alternately DC and DCC. Each has it's own basket of pluses and minuses. Being relatively new to collecting my 200+ loco's, I find the DCC basket of minuses to be rather small ... but, that's me not necessarily you (the generic you). Paul SignatureThe lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now. Modular furniture is cruel and unusual. > > What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that are > > just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL >My favourite is that old reliable comment, "I have 200+ locomotives - it >would cost too much to buy and fit decoders to convert them to DCC!" >And yet it didn't cost too much to buy 200+ locomotives in the first >place? LOL! I think I'm the the only one in this thread that mentioned having 200+ locomotives. I did NOT say the cost of converting them was too high. I said they are N-scale, and are not designed for a decoder. That means, there is no room inside to put a decoder without a lot of reworking of the interiors. As for the cost of buying 200 locomotives, I've been buying them for about 24 years. When the cost is spread out over 24 years, it is very affordable. And why would I want 200+ locomotives? Because I like the way they look. (About 2/3 are part of passenger sets). And I will admit that they do not get heavy usage. SignatureKen Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track, Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of Lego bricks http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire, Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others. > I think I'm the the only one in this thread that mentioned having 200+ > locomotives. I did NOT say the cost of converting them was too high. I said > they are N-scale, and are not designed for a decoder. That means, there is no > room inside to put a decoder without a lot of reworking of the interiors. You're the only one *here* who has said "200 locos", but that number was also used on the Atlas Forum's flame fest a couple years back, so don't take it personally. > As for the cost of buying 200 locomotives, I've been buying them for about 24 > years. When the cost is spread out over 24 years, it is very affordable. And who would buy 200 decoders at once? This reminds me of the reasons that people give to not convert to Kadee's: "I have X number of cars...it'd cost me $Y to convert. No way!" Well, yeah, but who converted to Kadee's overnight? I sure didn't. I had a couple "conversion" cars with a horn hook on one end and a Kadee on the other until I could afford to change all the cars. A good way to do this, BTW, is to ask for Kadee's for X-mas and birthday gifts. Makes a great "stocking stuffer". > And why would I want 200+ locomotives? Because I like the way they look. (About > 2/3 are part of passenger sets). And I will admit that they do not get heavy > usage. I don't begrudge anyone for the number of locos they own. However, if you can afford hundreds of locos, you can afford DCC. You just choose not to. That's all I'm saying. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* >clip > I don't begrudge anyone for the number of locos they own. However, if >you can afford hundreds of locos, you can afford DCC. You just choose not >to. That's all I'm saying. Right. If I wanted DCC, I'd have it. Right now I would rather put the money towards other aspects of the hobby. I've got my eyes on a few more engines. <G> SignatureKen Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track, Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of Lego bricks http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire, Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others. > What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that are > just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL Pac Man: What I find amusing is the pseudo-religious devotion DCCers have to their own pet system. :-) Cordially yours: Gerard P. >> What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that >> are just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL > > Pac Man: What I find amusing is the pseudo-religious devotion DCCers > have to their own pet system. :-) LOL! We're no more or less evangelical than some of the more strident members of the DC camp! :-) Cheers, Mark. > > Pac Man wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > LOL! We're no more or less evangelical than some of the more strident > members of the DC camp! :-) And some of them are right up there with Franklin Graham and Muktada al Sadr in terms of bloody-minded fundamentalist bullsh-t! SignatureSteve >>>> What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that >>>> are just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And some of them are right up there with Franklin Graham and Muktada al > Sadr in terms of bloody-minded fundamentalist bullsh-t! I'm not sure where the strident evangelicalism comes from for either camp; maybe misery loves company. I personally like DCC because it is simpler (for me) to set up and run. Others find the same benefit with DC. This is a HOBBY folks, and the goal is to enjoy yourself; if DC makes you happy: great; if DCC rings your bells, that's great, too. If you like using the palm and digital system to push your brio trains around, that is likewise cool. SignatureEd Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com > >> What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that > >> are just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > LOL! We're no more or less evangelical than some of the more strident > members of the DC camp! :-) Yes but, we're right. *8^P > Cheers, > > Mark. SignatureThe lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now. Modular furniture is cruel and unusual. >> What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that are >> just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their > own pet system. :-) Yep - it's definitely a religious issue, on both sides :-). But at least the argument is pretty much limited to the bishops and cardinals of the hobby - the lowly parishoner just keeps running his one train around his 4x8, blissfully ignorant of the whole debate :-). SignatureIt's turtles, all the way down > I've always said that a one train/one operator layout won't see much > benefit from DCC. And that type of layout is probably 80-90% of all layouts :-). And in fact, if the layout is designed for it, you can have at least three trains running with two or three operators and not have to flip switches. One train making laps on the main, another loco working the yard, and a third climbing the switchbacks on the branch line. But I think the only reason for a club, formal or informal, not to go DCC is a large investment already made and the expense of changing. SignatureIt's turtles, all the way down > And that type of layout is probably 80-90% of all layouts :-). And in fact, > if the layout is designed for it, you can have at least three trains running > with two or three operators and not have to flip switches. One train making > laps on the main, another loco working the yard, and a third climbing the > switchbacks on the branch line. Well, sure, you could also have a "Northlandz" layout and have 100+ looping trains that never intersect...each on it's own independant track. But that's not much of an realistic operation. ;-) > But I think the only reason for a club, formal or informal, not to go DCC is a > large investment already made and the expense of changing. Our reason before we moved was ignorance, price and the conversion labor. We had enough trouble keeping our 40 year old layout running as it was. And it was so "old school" that we took an odd sort of pride in getting the old layout to run well. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* > For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? > > Is it because your layout is already operating fine with conventional power; yes > the cost of converting; yes > the effort to convert your existing locos; yes > Do you think DCC is in you future? when decoders cost at most $3 per loco > don't want to mess with a system that's already > working; if it's not broken, don't fix it I don't use DCC but right now as I don't have room for a layout so I tend to build railroad models like scale modelers do. I build them and box them. Also I'm in the process of changing eras. So I'm getting rid of a bunch of modern diesels. It doesn't make sense to put decoders into them either time or moneywise. I think DCC is the way of the future. I think MTH system unless in so utterly superior to DCC will go the way of the myriad of command control systems of the 1980s that had no interchangeabilty. Does the DCS system use decoders? Have you seen aristocraft's ho radio control system? http://216.86.38.243/aristo/AMAZING/itemdesc.asp?CartId={40C45C85-FDEC-44D2EVERE ST-9B3F-0E32D65336B0}&ic=CRE55000&eq=&Tp= http://216.86.38.243/aristo/AMAZING/itemdesc.asp?CartId={40C45C85-FDEC-44D2EVERE ST-9B3F-0E32D65336B0}&ic=CRE55001&eq=&Tp= Eric >Has everyone who would have been likely convert to DCC already made the >change? Are there many more modelers out there waiting for the right time >to make the switch?< I doubt the market is even close to saturated (with the caveat that certain RTR sound imports might be). Most/all of the US DCC companies are behind in production which really means they can't product fast enough. Not quite enough to grow the companies (i.e. hire more people) but enough to keep them behind. Clubs that are not DC tend to have the problem of older members. These members present are sorts of reasons the most famous being "I have a million engine and it costs to much to convert". The reality is they probably one run a dozen of them, ever! As their voting power goes away then the club go to DCC. IMHO MTH is marketing with arrogance. Very few, if any, in the HO DCC group will switch to their command control (no new converts with only one engine to run) and I suspect the K4 will be a very poor seller. At best it will sell and then user will find it's not compatible _enough_ with DCC. If they can't get their money back it will show on the records as a sale. > >Has everyone who would have been likely convert to DCC already made the > >change? Are there many more modelers out there waiting for the right time [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > will sell and then user will find it's not compatible _enough_ with DCC. If > they can't get their money back it will show on the records as a sale. Sorry to wade in late on this topic, one of the few I've followed the thread through. I've just begun my third layout of my lifetime (literally laying subbed and drilling for switch throws as this thread has progressed), and am intending to fully implement DCC to the best of my abilities. My reasons for this decision are many. Mostly, I intend to operate switching on locals and yard jobs, while DCC with a computer act as dispatcher, clerk, express agent, or any other job I can hope to automate to a schedule. Routing and signaling are icing on the cake. Car tracking is also something I wish to include (anyone going to Denver? Can I get a progress report on the chip scanning tech?). I understand that both my layout concept and my wishlist are overly optimistic, but it is time to DO something aside from collection and reading. I'll likely operate the layout alone, so I will be trusting DCC to do what it can so that I will eventually enjoy the theatrics I'm building. Steve Woodall >Car tracking is also something I wish to include (anyone going to Denver? Can I get a progress report on the chip scanning tech?).< There is a really good discussion about RFID going on now on the JMRI list. Have you been following that. > There is a really good discussion about RFID going on now on the JMRI > list. Have you been following that. That is something I am not familiar with. If you have an addy or URL for it, I would appreciate the jesture and give it a look over. Steve >> There is a really good discussion about RFID going on now on the JMRI >> list. Have you been following that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Steve http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jmriusers/ Stevert > >> There is a really good discussion about RFID going on now on the JMRI > >> list. Have you been following that. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Stevert I thank you all for the pointers and links I've followed throughout this thread. I'm wishing there were a r.m.r.dcc group on the regular usenet, but I haven't tripped into one yet. But I am curious about one dcc item that I'm kind of banking on...is running scheduled trains on varying routes (and possible scheduled meets) within dcc's capabilities? Oh, yeah...I began an order for my 8' x 35' trailer today to house the future layout; I will take this one with me if ever I move again. Steve > I thank you all for the pointers and links I've followed throughout this > thread. I'm wishing there were a r.m.r.dcc group on the regular usenet, but > I haven't tripped into one yet. But I am curious about one dcc item that > I'm kind of banking on...is running scheduled trains on varying routes (and > possible scheduled meets) within dcc's capabilities? Sure. But you have to attach the layout to a computer and run software like Railroad & Co.'s "Train Controller", IIRC. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* It will probably be in my future but I tend to be somewhat of a late adaptor. I wanted to let things shake out before I started to go in that direction. Many people bought superior Beta-max video recorders to see them become useless ans teh marketplace decided the VHS standard. My lack of electronics knowledge is also somewhat of an issue. Don't know a thing about installing decoders but think that as more & more locomotives come out with either plugs or decoders in them, this will be less of a problem. dlm > For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/ > "I started out with nothing and I still have most of it." >For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? >Is it because your layout is already operating fine with conventional power; >the cost of converting; the effort to convert your existing locos; your club >has decided not to use DCC; etc.? >Do you think DCC is in you future? ... already planning to do a conversion >in the future; maybe you will convert if the price is right; you might do it >if the time is available; don't want to mess with a system that's already >working; etc.? >The recent thread on MTH's entry into HO scale with a non-DCC system has me >wondering how saturated the DCC market has become. Has everyone who would >have been likely convert to DCC already made the change? Are there many >more modelers out there waiting for the right time to make the switch? >I'd like to see opinions from the non DCC modelers/operators. I have over 200 n-scale engines, most of which are not designed for a decoder. And my layout works just fine the way it is. SignatureKen Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track, Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of Lego bricks http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire, Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others. > For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? > Do you think DCC is in you future? ... already planning to do a conversion > in the future; maybe you will convert if the price is right; you might do it > if the time is available; don't want to mess with a system that's already > working; etc.? > __________ > Mark Mathu > The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/ > "I started out with nothing and I still have most of it." I am in the design stages of a small home HO around the walls layout. I am undecided about DCC. DCC allows any number of engineers to operate any number of trains all at once. For a lone operator, it offers less advantage. My current thinking is to build the layout, get it running on DC, and if and when I have operating sessions with lots of operators, then go out and buy DCC. For the time being, I am thinking about running two throttle buses, allowing dual cab control. If I could find a batch of electrical switches offering more than double throw operation, I would run more throttle buses and allow more cabs. David Starr >I am thinking about running two throttle buses, allowing dual cab control. If I could find a batch of electrical switches offering more than double throw operation, I would run more throttle buses and allow more cabs.< By the time you do this you have paid for a DCC system! > By the time you do this you have paid for a DCC system! Maybe, ... maybe not. Let's see. DC: When I've finished my track laying I will have about 60 blocks. At about AU$6 for a switch and knob, that'll cost me AU$360, but let's say AU$400 including wire. DCC: In a normal operating session I run about 40 locomotives, but about 30 of them are on through trains which are run one-at-a-time. That's handy, as it means I can run my through trains on address "00" and I don't need to buy decoders for most of the locos. My cost to convert then comes to whatever it will cost me for the following: - Digitrax Empire Builder set (maybe AU$350 by the time I get it here and convert it to Aussie current) - 4 throttles (luckily my friends have more) (say another AU$90 each or A$360 for the lot) - a single DCC booster (about ~ AU$200) - I'd prefer 2 at least - a dozen decoders (well, where do I begin - at least AU$25 each if I'm REALLY lucky ... say AU$300) Total cost to convert my existing layout to DCC is over AU$1200 ..... I think that the answer is .... NOT!!!!!!! Ron Australia SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > By the time you do this you have paid for a DCC system! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > AU$6 for a switch and knob, that'll cost me AU$360, but let's say AU$400 > including wire. Um, have you priced copper wire lately? I seriously doubt you could wire a 60 block layout for AU$40. You also forgot throttles, power supplies, block lights, ammeters, plus the cost of the cab panels, paint, lettering, etc. that you don't have with DCC (not to mention your time). BTW, is that 60 blocks...does that mean that each cab needs 60 toggles? Or have you spread that out a bit? > DCC: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > - Digitrax Empire Builder set (maybe AU$350 by the time I get it here and > convert it to Aussie current) Why can't you use their Zephyr? It's only US$155. Are you running more than 10 engines at one time? > - 4 throttles (luckily my friends have more) (say another AU$90 each or > A$360 for the lot) Just curious, but what throttles are these? UT4's? > - a single DCC booster (about ~ AU$200) - I'd prefer 2 at least I run 3 to 6 locos on my 25' x 50' layout with a single 2.5amp Zephyr with three operators. I, too, was concerned about power, but over the last year and change, I've found that I don't need boosters for what I'm doing as most of my locos are "modern" (within the last 20 years) with low amp motors. > - a dozen decoders (well, where do I begin - at least AU$25 each if I'm > REALLY lucky ... say AU$300) That's the main cost right there. However, when one can aquire 40 locos, gathering the resources for decoders shouldn't be an issue. > Total cost to convert my existing layout to DCC is over AU$1200 ..... > > I think that the answer is .... NOT!!!!!!! Well, go back and add up how much money you're really spending on DC, then get back to us. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* > > > By the time you do this you have paid for a DCC system! > > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Weather Or No Go New Haven > ************* AU$40 for wire? Yeah - I was just rounding and it would have been more, but not a great deal more. On the other hand, I priced the switches I've used today and they'd actually work out at under $5 each including knobs, and the average cost will be closer to $4 per switch, as less than half require a knob. In the yards I have rotary switches (for left and right mainline throttles and the yard throttle), in the intermediate towns I use DPDTCO switches (left and right throttles only). So the extra cost of the wire will largely be offset by the saving on the switches. You're right - I did forget about the throttles, etc. Most of my power supplies are all freebies that I've picked up along the way (~40 years), and I build my own transistor throttles. My 6 tethered (walk-around) throttles cost me about $15 each, and my two panel mounts less than $10 each. It is about 60 blocks spread across 2 yard panels (~12 each) and 4 town panels. The layout is walk-around, and the town panels mean that the length of wire between the panel and the track is in most cases only a few feet. OTOH, I was conservative with DCC throttles, as I will be relying on friends to bring theirs over. Block lights? Ammeters? ......Why? Control panels - print the track plan artwork onto paper and laminate it., then back it with a sheet of mdf board. It works a treat. Cost = a few cents. In fact, my DCC operating friend does the same thing to show the town layouts, so the cost is the same eaither way. Zephyr? Thanks - I will check it out. One of my friends recommended the EB and I haven't looked into it myself. I expect to run up to 6 DCC 'trains' at a time, some of which will be double headed, plus a (7th) double or triple deaded DC train on address "00". Is the limitation on the number of loco addresses, locos, or trains? Yes, I think the throttles were the UT4s. I just want whatever's cheapest, ... with a big knob. I'm not particularly interested in the ...err, bells and whistles. If I save money on the main unit then I can afford to buy more throttles. As for a booster - well as I mentioned, I will be running up to 10 locos at a time, so power will be a consideration. But my reason for wanting more than two (eventually) is to minimise the effect of short circuits. BTW - almost all my switches were used on an earlier layout which predated DCC, so their cost to me is actually nothing. Most of my locos are older units which will require milling to fit a decoder into. When I convert I will simply put all my DC locos into the through train motive power pool, and buy new decoder equipped locos to run on DCC. So don't get me wrong - I'm not opposed to DCC. I plan to convert when I can afford to, just so that I can run more trains simultaneously. But that won't be until I have nothing better to spend the money (well over AU$1200 including the new locos) on. In the meantime, my layout handles 4 trains simultaneously just fine. Regards, Ron SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > By the time you do this you have paid for a DCC system! > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > AU$6 for a switch and knob, that'll cost me AU$360, but let's say AU$400 > including wire. My, you ARE an optimist. Only AU$40 for wire, with 60 blocks? This tells me two things right away: 1) It's a physically small layout 2) You're not using big enough wire! However, let's look at this operationally. To get the same OPERATIONAL capability that DCC gives you, you'll need FAR more blocks. As an example, I had a 7x9 foot N scale layout, with a 4 track yard, engine house, and a single track mainline with 4 passing tracks and 6 sidings. At any one time there would be at least 2 through trains running (two locomotives each), a yard switcher, and an industrial switcher (not to mention closing out the last run and preparing the next...). To get anywhere near the same capability with analog I got with digital control, I estimated I would need AT LEAST 51 blocks, each with a MINIMUM of 4 cabs!! With DCC, I wired it as a single block, with only one feeder and a single reverser. I'd add a couple more feeders if I were doing it again... and am in the process of building my next layout now. > DCC: > > In a normal operating session I run about 40 locomotives, but about 30 of > them are on through trains which are run one-at-a-time. That's handy, as it > means I can run my through trains on address "00" and I don't need to buy > decoders for most of the locos. Only if you buy a Digitrax or Lenz system. > My cost to convert then comes to whatever > it will cost me for the following: > - Digitrax Empire Builder set (maybe AU$350 by the time I get it here and > convert it to Aussie current) Much better to buy a Super Chief system (street price US$350, includes 1 DT-400 throttle) and a couple of PM-42 power managers (street price US$62.95) The Empire Builder system does NOT read decoder settings. The Chief does. > - 4 throttles (luckily my friends have more) (say another AU$90 each or > A$360 for the lot) UT4 throttles are US$64.95 > - a single DCC booster (about ~ AU$200) - I'd prefer 2 at least Unless you have a HUGE private layout, it's not needed. Use the PM-42s to divide power up instead. Are you REALLY going to have more than 5 amps draw on the layout at any one time? > - a dozen decoders (well, where do I begin - at least AU$25 each if I'm > REALLY lucky ... say AU$300) Digitrax's least expensive decoder (DZ123, 1 amp capacity) is street priced at US$15.95. ($20.98 AUD) > Total cost to convert my existing layout to DCC is over AU$1200 ..... Totals using the above prices: Chief system....$350.00 Throttles 4 x $64.95......$259.80 PM-42............$62.95 12 decoders.....$191.40 ----------------------- Total: $864.15 USD or according to http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi , $1,136.37 AUD Using your figures, and assuming you underestimated the number of blocks necessary to get _equivalent_operational_capability_ with DCC by _only_ 50% (most folks do FAR worse - they dramatically underestimate the operational flexibility of DCC!), your costs are much higher than you think. For example, to run 10 trains at a time, you'll probably need TWO switches and knobs per block. 120 blocks, X 2 x A$6.00 (The Super Chief system quoted above can run 120 trains at a time...) Want to add just a couple more trains? You'll have to add 120 more switches and knobs, and take the time to wire and install them. With DCC, just install a decoder in the locomotive and run 'em. Switches & Knobs (240) A$1440.00 ... and you haven't even bought wire yet. > I think that the answer is .... NOT!!!!!!! If cost is your sole criteria, you'd better re-evaluate that answer. SignatureEvaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars by the example of Yugos. You guys beat me to it. Nice job on the cost analysis.... Signature+GF+ "I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter." - Blaise Pascal among his Provincial Letters (1656-57) www.ete.org www.internationalrailfair.com > >> > By the time you do this you have paid for a DCC system! [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > If cost is your sole criteria, you'd better re-evaluate that answer. > My, you ARE an optimist. Only AU$40 for wire, with 60 blocks? This tells > me two things right away: > > 1) It's a physically small layout > 2) You're not using big enough wire! Rubbish. If you go to buy such things new, you might pay a fortune; if you do a bit of searching (e.g. garage sales, disposal stores), the cost is minimal. Same applies to switches. > > My, you ARE an optimist. Only AU$40 for wire, with 60 blocks? This tells > > me two things right away: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you do a bit of searching (e.g. garage sales, disposal stores), the cost > is minimal. Same applies to switches. Yep! I use mains rated wire for main buses and heavy duty figure-eight "speaker" wire for hooking up the track power. It is actually remarkably cheap. If you look around though, it's amazing how easy it is to come by FREE wire. Ron SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Rubbish. If you go to buy such things new, you might pay a fortune; if >> you do a bit of searching (e.g. garage sales, disposal stores), the cost [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wire for hooking up the track power. It is actually remarkably cheap. If > you look around though, it's amazing how easy it is to come by FREE wire. And, as another poster pointed out, it's easy to build your own DC throttles for little or nothing using the sources mentioned. OTOH, I have a lot of TIP120 transistors I bought to build "Switch Witch" circuits for twin coil switch machines, and by the time I got around to it, I'd decided to operate the turnouts manually with cables :-). SignatureIt's turtles, all the way down > > My, you ARE an optimist. Only AU$40 for wire, with 60 blocks? This tells > > me two things right away: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you do a bit of searching (e.g. garage sales, disposal stores), the cost > is minimal. Same applies to switches. I have to doubt you've tried to get "free" wire any time recently. Copper prices are up high enough that crooks are burning down warehouses in the process of trying to steal the wiring to sell. New homes under construction have had just-installed wiring ripped out of them during the night. Copper pipe for plumbing has doubled or trebled in price. Brass fittings, too. SignatureEvaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars by the example of Yugos. > Joe Ellis wrote: > >> My, you ARE an optimist. Only AU$40 for wire, with 60 blocks? This >> tells me two things right away: >> >> 1) It's a physically small layout 2) You're not using big enough >> wire! > > Rubbish. If you go to buy such things new, you might pay a fortune; > if you do a bit of searching (e.g. garage sales, disposal stores), > the cost is minimal. Same applies to switches. No doubt the cost of obtaining wire and switches this way is minimal. But to me, what you would be then doing is embarking on a new hobby - scavenging! <Big smile!> Mark. > In article <44d1d8b2$0$5355$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > > However, let's look at this operationally. To get the same OPERATIONAL > capability that DCC gives you, you'll need FAR more blocks. I'm not trying to get the same capability that DCC offers. And what's more - I DON'T WANT IT! In a typical operating session, about one-third of my block switches (industrial sidings and yard tracks) don't get thrown at all. (They are there 'just in case') > As an > example, I had a 7x9 foot N scale layout, with a 4 track yard, engine > house, and a single track mainline with 4 passing tracks and 6 sidings. > At any one time there would be at least 2 through trains running (two > locomotives each), a yard switcher, and an industrial switcher (not to > mention closing out the last run and preparing the next...). I have a 20' x 18' room, with a point to point (staging yard to staging yard) N scale layout that runs around the walls, and down two peninsulas. There are classification yards at each end and five towns in between (each with a passing track and industrial sidings). I (simultaneously) run a switcher in each yard, plus a through freight and a local switcher. Operations are at a relaxed pace because that's how it was done on the prototype I'm modelling. > > Total cost to convert my existing layout to DCC is over AU$1200 ..... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > or according to http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi , $1,136.37 AUD Plus S&H to Australia, and a power supply on Australian current ... over AU$1200. As I said. > Using your figures, and assuming you underestimated the number of blocks > necessary to get _equivalent_operational_capability_ with DCC by _only_ > 50% I'll have to read my post again. Maybe I DID say that I want to "get _equivalent_operational_capability_ with DCC" > (most folks do FAR worse - they dramatically underestimate the > operational flexibility of DCC!), your costs are much higher than you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Switches & Knobs (240) A$1440.00 WTF? I don't WANT to run 10 trains at a time. Hello - did you read what I said??? Joe - what have you "proven" here? Your whole argument (and your costs) is based on your misguided notion that I have 120 blocks, and that I want to run somewhere between 10 and 120 trains at a time. Where did you get that from??? Ron SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Joe - what have you "proven" here? Your whole argument (and your costs) is > based on your misguided notion that I have 120 blocks, and that I want to > run somewhere between 10 and 120 trains at a time. Where did you get that > from??? I think that Joe has proven that he is one of the type of people who, after becoming addicted to a certain approach, must make everyone else's situation fit into their own framework. However I certainly don't fit into it. I only have two eyes and therefore could not even watch 10 trains simultaneously. > > Joe - what have you "proven" here? Your whole argument (and your costs) is > > based on your misguided notion that I have 120 blocks, and that I want to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > However I certainly don't fit into it. I only have two eyes and > therefore could not even watch 10 trains simultaneously. I think you missed the part of his original post where he said he has multiple operators... SignatureEvaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars by the example of Yugos. > > In article <44d1d8b2$0$5355$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > my block switches (industrial sidings and yard tracks) don't get thrown at > all. (They are there 'just in case') Perhaps... but you wouldn't need them AT ALL with DCC, and you wouldn't be limited in what you can do by where the block divisions are. "You don't want" the operational ability of DCC... probably because you've never HAD it. The only _valid_ comparison in pricing between analog and digital REQUIRES you to compare _operational_capability_. Otherwise, it's an apples to coconuts comparison. You're not _REALLY_ comparing the same layout. You're just comparing _different_ layouts that happen to have the same track plan. > > As an > > example, I had a 7x9 foot N scale layout, with a 4 track yard, engine [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Operations are at a relaxed pace because that's how it was done on the > prototype I'm modelling. That's similar in size and concept to the N scale layout I'm building. I'll have just one peninsula, but it's a multi-level layout with over 6 double-tracked scale miles of track, point to point. My yards at each end will be working yards, with one in the middle of the run. Add a bunch of industrial sidings and a dedicated passenger hi=speed rail line. Guess what? The DCC costs are _exactly_ the same as the layout half the size. > > > Total cost to convert my existing layout to DCC is over AU$1200 ..... > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Plus S&H to Australia, and a power supply on Australian current ... over > AU$1200. As I said. Power supply can be the same one you use for the analog layout, which is why it wasn't included. The command station/booster takes 12-24 volt AC or DC input. AC Hz doesn't matter - it's rectified inside the unit. S&H to Oz is NOT over $100 AU. > > Using your figures, and assuming you underestimated the number of blocks > > necessary to get _equivalent_operational_capability_ with DCC by _only_ > > 50% > > I'll have to read my post again. Maybe I DID say that I want to "get > _equivalent_operational_capability_ with DCC" As I said above, it's the only VALID way to compare costs. > > (most folks do FAR worse - they dramatically underestimate the > > operational flexibility of DCC!), your costs are much higher than you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > WTF? I don't WANT to run 10 trains at a time. Hello - did you read what I > said??? You didn't say HOW many trains you ran at a time in your original post, so it wasn't there to read, was it? You DID say you ran 30 to 40 in an operation session. You mentioned 4 throttles, but said "luckily my friends have more", indicating more than four trains were run. But think about it... if you only have 1-5 running at a time, you only need one set of switches (but you still have to change the setting every time you enter/leave a block... and don't even TRY to tell us you and your operators never forget to do that!). However, to add just ONE train (for a total of six), you have to add another _complete_ set of switches and wiring.. and flip one or two every time you enter /leave a block. You're good then until you get to 10 trains... then you need ANOTHER complete set to go to 11, and now you have to work one, two, or THREE every time you enter/leave a block. With the DCC system, you can go to 120 trains... and NEVER have to throw a cab selector. That alone is worth converting for many folks! As anyone who has made the change can tell you, you run more trains on a layout with DCC than you did on the same layout with analog... BECAUSE YOU CAN. When you have to completely rewire a layout to add a train (as in your case) it provides considerable operational inertia. > Joe - what have you "proven" here? Your whole argument (and your costs) is > based on your misguided notion that I have 120 blocks, and that I want to > run somewhere between 10 and 120 trains at a time. Where did you get that > from??? Your whole misguided notion is that you can compare a DCC layout evenly to your analog layout and make the comparison based on costs without considering operational flexibility. As I said above, you're comparing apples to coconuts. Really tiny apples. Really BIG coconuts. You say you have 60 blocks now. Got a track plan that shows them? Post a link to it and I'll take a look at it. I'm betting it would require AT LEAST 120 blocks to even APPROACH the capability of a DCC system powering the same track plan. It might well need _over_ 200 blocks to approach operational parity with DCC. SignatureEvaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars by the example of Yugos. > > > By the time you do this you have paid for a DCC system! > > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > were doing it again... and am in the process of building my next layout > now. I can't see why you would need 51 blocks with panel block switches for a DC layout that only runs 2 through trains. For DC layouts 3 blocks per train in motion is a good ratio. You only needed around 6 cab switched blocks for your example, not 56. Using route control wiring of your turnouts is how to wire a DC layout to minimise necessary panel switches. > > DCC: > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > take the time to wire and install them. With DCC, just install a decoder > in the locomotive and run 'em. With DC you can theoretically run as many trains as you like. The limit is the size of the layout, not the serial communications DCC bus. The DCC you describe only allows about 40 trains to be operated independently, the limit of hand controllers the system can use. I would expect some noticeable delay in response running this many hand controllers off one command station. Your DCC DC cost comparison is not realistic. There is more than one way to wire a DC layout. I can build a DC system for any layout, any size that is cheaper than the cheapest DCC system that will do the same basic job, if you include the DCC decoder costs. If you ignore the decoder cost DCC can become price competitive. > Switches & Knobs (240) A$1440.00 It is not necessary to use so many switches for a manual switched DC system. For your theoretical DCC example I can do the same Using my DC manual block control system on my web page, 3 blocks per train, 8 trains= 24 blocks. It cost's me about AU$30 per block, including block detection and a panel switch to operate a signal for each block. Total cost AU $720. No extra locomotive decoders needed. I can have 8 trains with more than 5 locomotives per train without extra decoder costs. If you want track detection for 24 DCC blocks, the price for DCC is higher again. > ... and you haven't even bought wire yet. Wiring costs will work out about the same if you want reliable running. > > I think that the answer is .... NOT!!!!!!! > > If cost is your sole criteria, you'd better re-evaluate that answer. I have, DC can be cheaper by far. Only when you decide to use all DC / DCC sound equipped locomotives does DCC become price competitive. So one reason to go DC is it can be cheaper. Another reason is DC is easier to build your own control system. Another reason is you get locomotive noise from a filtered DC controller. Another reason is with DC you do not need to find space in locomotives for decoders. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet Folks: All this verbiage and figurage flying through the air makes me want to use 1 throttle per block, and no switches, and maybe outside third rail. :) Cordially yours: Gerard P. >> By the time you do this you have paid for a DCC system! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > AU$6 for a switch and knob, that'll cost me AU$360, but let's say AU$400 > including wire. Yes. If you want to use Tricky Dicky's rotaries. 4 pole, 3 position rotaries were about $5 last time I looked. Putting it bluntly, they are awful. A decent rotary, break before make, with say 6 positions and 4 poles (swap the numbers around to suit yourself) is nearer $30Au from a reputable (not Dick) electrical retailer. Now, 60 blocks @ $30? You do the math. Then add rolls of colour coded wire - 12, to be the positive and negative of each cab, assuming you are not using common return - you're not using common return, are you?? Wire, large enough gauge to avoid v drop, $45 per 100 metres from Bambachs. Now, that's each roll. Chhhing. Add $540. Less, of course if you are using 4 cabs, I have based it on 6. Now throttles - decent ones. about $100 each purchased, $50 if you build them yourself - to the quality of, say, a TAT5. Ummmm - that's a lot.... > DCC: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > means I can run my through trains on address "00" and I don't need to buy > decoders for most of the locos. Um. I wouldnt run them on 00. It runis it for everything else, and it is a protocol that is being phased out - not supported by NCE, for instance. My cost to convert then comes to whatever > it will cost me for the following: > - Digitrax Empire Builder set (maybe AU$350 by the time I get it here and > convert it to Aussie current) Er - there is no difference, on the railway side of the transformer, between American and Australian current. Or English, Swedish, German, Swahili or whatever you use. Feel free, however, to purchase one of Dick's transformers. (plus cord, plug, box, switch, output terminals, fuse holder etc etc, but you'll need that irrespective of DC or DCC.) You dont need Toroidal Core hi qual stuff, just something with the necessary herbs to run the layout. > - 4 throttles (luckily my friends have more) (say another AU$90 each or > A$360 for the lot) Maybe - dunno about D throttles. NCE is under $200au each for a Cab04. > - a single DCC booster (about ~ AU$200) - I'd prefer 2 at least > - a dozen decoders (well, where do I begin - at least AU$25 each if I'm > REALLY lucky ... say AU$300) Try MRC - a bulk pack works out at under $20 each last time I looked. > Total cost to convert my existing layout to DCC is over AU$1200 ..... > > I think that the answer is .... NOT!!!!!!! I think the answer is reconsider. Connect your PC to a railroad for easy fine tuning in DC? Priceless - as in you can't do it, irrespective of cost. Run sound on DC? Haw. Fine if you JUST use BLI. Don't mix or match with anything else. Hope you haven't ordered one of Werris' AD60's. Radio throttles? With Lenz you can use a cordless phone. I went through the exercise in 1994, when I was building my prev layout and DCC just appeared. After musch research, I went DCC. Nobody forced me, or coerced me, it was a decision based on what I wanted to do. And there is one interesting thing. I have met lots of people who converted to DCC from DC since. I have met nobody who converted back from DCC to DC. Wonder why .... Steve Newcastle NSW Aust > Wire, large enough gauge to avoid v drop, $45 per 100 metres from > Bambachs. Now, that's each roll. Or about a tenth that price for ten times the length if you go searching or if you accumulate such things when you see them available. But isn't the real point much more fundamental? If someone is starting from scratch, obviously they would consider DCC. But if you already have a system that works (for which all these costs, real or imaginary, were incurred long ago) then the relevant cost to CONVERT to DCC is the cost of installing decoders and control systems (and maybe some other reconfiguration), which can be very considerable even if you can physically do it. Which brings us back to the basic point - if it isn't broken, don't fix it, but especially don't spend money to "improve" it if there are no benefits sufficient to justify the cost. It's like people wanting to spend thousands of dollars to get plasma or LCD TVs - if your existing TV works perfectly well and gives you complete satisfaction, why would you spend such money for at best marginal benefit? Some people will spend the money because they want new technology for the sake of it, or for snob value, or similar; but others will look purely at the practical benefit and conclude that it in no way justifies the cost. > if your existing TV works perfectly well > and gives you complete satisfaction . . . . . . you need to get a life, not a plasma TV! SignatureSteve > don't spend money to "improve" it if there are no > benefits sufficient to justify the cost. Using that logic, you're saying that we *should* spend money to "improve" it if there *are* benefits sufficient to justify the cost. I have a smallish layout - 11x14 feet. I wanted to do some things with it, such as some basic signaling, remote dispatching, multiple operators, etc. To do all that with DC is certainly possible, but by using the "intelligence" of DCC I was able to do it at a much lower cost in terms of dollars, time and wiring complexity. Adding decoders to my loco fleet was like detailing a freight car, or converting a car to KaDee's and metal wheelsets - a minor expense/inconvenience compared to the benefits received, and one that could be spread over time. I consider it to be a non-issue because it's like any other rolling-stock upgrade. So for me, converting to DCC was a no-brainer. Stevert >> don't spend money to "improve" it if there are no benefits sufficient >> to justify the cost. > Using that logic, you're saying that we *should* spend money to > "improve" it if there *are* benefits sufficient to justify the cost. Exactly. Isn't it like most other things: if a cost/benefit analysis shows that the benefits justify the costs IN THE PARTICULAR CONTEXT, then do it? Recall that this aspect of the thread has emerged from DCC supporters saying (in effect) that DCC was the only sensible action for everyone? What I and some others are trying to get across is that it is only a sensible action for SOME people. | assuming you are not using common return - you're not using common return, | are you?? | Steve | Newcastle NSW Aust Honest question - what's wrong with using common return? I haven't started my layout yet (and it'll be a while yet) but I'd prefer to do it "right first time" as much as possible. I would have thought that common return would save some effort and money? Ivor >| assuming you are not using common return - you're not using common return, >| are you?? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Ivor Indeed common return does save effort and money, and there is nothing wrong with it, I used it for all my layouts and club layouts for 30 years without any problem. With DCC boosters there are can be problems depending on how the rest of the circuitry is arranged so if you want it to be easily convertible make it so you can easily seperate the common return between what would become seperate power districts. Blocks within each district can be wired common return, then when you convert they become common feed as well. Keith > | assuming you are not using common return - you're not using common return, > | are you?? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ivor For Analog DC, common rail is usable, WITH the understanding that it has it's own set of 'Quirks' for handling "Reverse Loops", 'Turntables", and any other 'polarity reversal' problems associated with 'Two Rail' wiring. Converting from a 'Common Rail' wired layout to 'DCC' shouldn't be any harder than the "normal', two independent wires to every block that is the common situation. If you have handled the 'common rail' quirks successfully, they shouldn't 'bite you' too often during the change, because you are already aware that there are differences. If you are starting from scratch. I.E. New layout headed for DCC in the near term, don't even wave at 'common rail'. JMHO Chuck Davis | > Honest question - what's wrong with using common return? I haven't | > started my layout yet (and it'll be a while yet) but I'd prefer to do it "right [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] | | Chuck Davis Thanks Keith and Chuck - I will be starting straight off with DCC, so no common return then. Ivor >> For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > David Starr Certainly, one of the benefits of DCC is multiple operators. But even for single operators, if you have multiple trains, like on an around the walls layout with double tracking either everywhere or in sections, DCC is perfect. With my Digitrax system, the DT400 throttle lets me run two trains with one on the left and one on the right knobs. If you wire well for DC, conversion to DCC should be a snap; you'll wind up just putting all of control sections together with switches or jumpers as if you were controlling everything from a single DC cab; take care with your turnouts (see the DCC link below) to that when (if) you convert to DCC you don't have short circuits there. When I converted my first adult layout (1997) from DC to DCC, it took 10 minutes since I used Atlas turnouts which are DCC friendly out of box. SignatureEd Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com Use 6P6T rotary switches. You can wire the second and third for the DC cabs and when you go DCC, just wire it to the fourth. Leave the first position unwired for an off position. SignatureFrank Rosenbaum Please support the following train meets if you can Gratiot Valley ( www.gvrr.org ) in Macomb Michigan in March and November and the Kalamazoo Model Railroad Historical Society ( www.kmrhs.org ) at the Kalamazoo Fairgrounds in Kalamazoo MI in October. Also check out the Westchester Model Railroad Club's train meet in Greenwich CT in November and March. Visit this web site to see my bridge and the KMRHS http://tinyurl.com/7uqdr Frank Rosenbaum >> For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > David Starr My reason is $$$, pure and simple. I had a system but it went belly up. I'm going to buy a different one but just don't have the free $$. I don't want an entry system because I've used some advanced features and I want a specific brand. So I have to wait until I have the bucks to spend. Or at least until the sweet wifey says ok to putting it on the credit card :-). Yeah, DCC is definately in my future. If not I'll switch to building non railroad model kits. Life goes on within you and without you. Jb > For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/ > "I started out with nothing and I still have most of it." > For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? Layout not built yet. When it does get built it will definitely be DCC powered. SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ "I sometimes think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability." -Oscar Wilde Mark, I just got an NCE Power Cab a few weeks ago. I have been looking into all the various systems for several years now and just kept waiting to see what might develop. Price was certainly a consideration however value was of greater concern. I wanted compatibility with some of the features of the more advanced systems but only needed to accommodate two operators. The Power Cab fit that need well at a modest price. As far as decoders go I only need seven total. Two for the diesel locomotives that are run on my timesaver and five for the steam locomotives on my layout so the total cost for me is low. One of the reasons I wanted DCC was to have control over sound and able to run two locomotives without having to switch power blocks between cabs. I wired the layout with DCC in mind but I still have blocks that can be turned on or off as way to help isolate problems. I think in DCC speak blocks are called power districts so that's what I have. I discovered after using DCC that I really like the ability to program the CVs to adjust locomotive performance and the actual control of them. I feel much more like I am operating a machine rather than just giving it more or less power. One thing I thought I would not be interested in using DCC for was to control turnouts but seeing how easy and intuitive my system is I may add this feature to the layout. Even though I wanted a DCC system I thought DCC might be over rated but now I feel otherwise. I can see that there are very valid reasons for people not to go with DCC but if a person does not need to decoder equip a large number of locomotives the cost is not high and benefits even for single locomotive operation are outstanding. Bruce > For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/ > "I started out with nothing and I still have most of it." > For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/ > "I started out with nothing and I still have most of it." Mark, My N scale layout was designed to allow 4 operators to work with minimal switch throwing: one operating each of the two yards, a 3rd running a local freight and a 4th running through trains. Athough the layout runs just fine like this, I usually get about a dozen guys show up to operate, so I've been looking into what I can do to keep more of them occupied. I reckon that if I run two switchers in each yard, I'll be able to run two locals concurrently, and more frequent through trains. Sadly, these extra trains (especially in the yard) will increase the amount of switch throwing to the point where it will become painful. When I first considered DCC I thought I'd have to convert all my locos at once. However, I've since realised that as I run my through trains one-at-a-time I can run them all on address "00" (ie leave the locos as DC locos), which means I will only have to convert about a dozen locos for yard and local switching. So, yes, DCC is in my long range plans. But the cost is prohibitive at present (see my comments elsewhere on that). Regards, Ron McF Australia SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >When I first considered DCC I thought I'd have to convert all my locos at >once. However, I've since realised that as I run my through trains >one-at-a-time I can run them all on address "00" (ie leave the locos as DC >locos), which means I will only have to convert about a dozen locos for yard >and local switching. Address 0 is not in my opinion suitable for extended use, especially with small motors, you had better include the other 30 decoders in your costing! Keith > >When I first considered DCC I thought I'd have to convert all my locos at > >once. However, I've since realised that as I run my through trains [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Keith Keith, This is one thing that worried me, so I've done a fair bit of testing on a friend's DCC layout. The noise is annoying when the locos are stationary, but when they're moving all seems okay. My through trains will usually only make one trip per session. They come online from staging, exchange cars at one yard, then run to the second yard (at the other end of the layout) and exchange more cars, before going back to staging. Total running time is only about 10 minutes. I don't expect that to be a problem, but if anyone would care to comment, I'm listening. Ron SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? Simple. Our control system is 15 years old and is running with 76 current regulators. We could ditch those, buy boosters and decoders and make it run DCC, but why should we ? If we had to start all over today, it would definitly be running DCC. Klaus SignatureModelbane Europas hjemmeside: http://www.modelbaneeuropa.hadsten.dk Modeltog, internet, gratis spambekæmpelse, elektronik og andet: http://home6.inet.tele.dk/moppe > For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? > > Is it because your layout is already operating fine with conventional > power; the cost of converting; the effort to convert your existing locos; > your club has decided not to use DCC; etc.? The cost and the effort. I'd love to be able to have different brands of engines be able to run at the same speed. Plus, not having to have blocks. Chris Curren >> For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Chris Curren The whole concept of controlling your trains and not having to control your track is completely lost on Flynn and a few others. They just don't get it. Flynn seems to be proud of his ability to jump through burning hoops with regard to mimicking many of DCCs features with DC. Bully for him. I can't be bothered with trying to prove to the world that I'm as smart as Keith Gutierrez, or A. J. Ireland, or Bernd Lenz, or Jim Scorse, so I run my trains with a command station and two wires to the track. Bugger all that DC and block control crap. I'll take plug and play, all the way. Oh yes, one other thing. Don't give me any knicker stains about having to install decoders. After you do the first one, it becomes a no-brainer. -- arf arf Diesel Dog >>> For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Oh yes, one other thing. Don't give me any knicker stains about having to install >decoders. After you do the first one, it becomes a no-brainer. Unless you're in N scale. Then, things can get interesting! fl@liner This tagline has been certified to contain no political rants. >>>> For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >fl@liner Even more interesting if you are into Z scale, but scale is a personal choice. You make your bed and you lie in it. -- arf arf Diesel Dog >You make your bed and you lie in it. Some people lie everywhere, even on USENET. Beds are for laying. -- Ray >> You make your bed and you lie in it. > > Some people lie everywhere, even on USENET. Beds are for laying. > -- > Ray Most folks seem to forget which is which. Remember it as follows: LIE in an intransitive verb (whether to indicate prevarication or reclining); so you LIE about something, or you LIE down. It means to be in or move onto a surface. To LIE in bed. LAY is a transitive verb and takes an object: I will LAY on the bed; I LAY bricks. It means to put something on a surface Remember: brick layer (one who LAYS bricks) remind yourself of which one is the transitive and takes an object, then use appropriately. You make your bed and lie in it. You made your bed and lay in it. (Lay is the past tense if to lie). SignatureEd Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:26:22 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and "Edward A. Oates" <nowayedoates.temp@unearthlylink.net> instead replied: >Most folks seem to forget which is which. It's all good fun here on USENET. The absurd notion of getting into bed just to tell tall tales amuses me. -- Ray > On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:26:22 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card" > and "Edward A. Oates" <nowayedoates.temp@unearthlylink.net> instead [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Ray I can think of lots of folks who tell TALL tales prior to getting into bed, just to have their tails belie them. SignatureEd Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com Edward A. Oates spake thus: >>On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:26:22 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card" >>and "Edward A. Oates" <nowayedoates.temp@unearthlylink.net> instead [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I can think of lots of folks who tell TALL tales prior to getting into bed, > just to have their tails belie them. I was lying in bed. As I lay there, I lied, so I was lying in bed. (I lied by telling a tale.) As a result, I was punished and grew a tail. My tail was lying in bed with me as I was lying in bed (telling a tale) while lying in bed. Now I have a tell-tale tail. SignatureIn order to embark on a new course, the only one that will solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah. Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace. - Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. (http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html) And so explains why English (American) is hard to learn and even harder for those of us for whom it's a native language. >>> You make your bed and you lie in it. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You make your bed and lie in it. > You made your bed and lay in it. (Lay is the past tense if to lie). I laid down to lay some pipe? SignatureSteve >>>> You make your bed and you lie in it. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I laid down to lay some pipe? I believe that is "I lay down to lay some pipe." "Lay" is the past tense of the intransitive verb "to lie:" in your sentence above, "laid," being the past tense of the transitive verb "to lay" in incorrectly used. In the second use of "lay," you are correct since it is used with an object, "some pipe." Yours in remedial English (which I took at Cal as "Subject A" some years ago....). I'm pretty good at mechanics, lousy at actually writing. SignatureEd Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com >>You make your bed and you lie in it. > > Some people lie everywhere, even on USENET. Beds are for laying. > -- > Ray Agreed Ray, and they're also for sleeping. Jim > >On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:15:59 GMT, "Chris Curren" > ><ChrisCurren@Don'tWriteMe.com> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Unless you're in N scale. Then, things can get interesting! Bah. I've done dozens of N scale SW9/1200s, and even put a decoder in a 3 axle industrial switcher (about 20-25 scale feet long). The only N scale loco I've seen that couldn't be DCC'd was the Bachman 4-4-0... and even that one has been done by putting the decoder in a following car. SignatureEvaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars by the example of Yugos. >>> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:15:59 GMT, "Chris Curren" >> Unless you're in N scale. Then, things can get interesting! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > loco I've seen that couldn't be DCC'd was the Bachman 4-4-0... and even > that one has been done by putting the decoder in a following car. What brand of decoders do you like best? And what do they cost? I have a dozen or so HO locomotives. What's it gonna cost me to decoderize all of them? David Starr >>>> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:15:59 GMT, "Chris Curren" > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > David Starr Well, once can of Right Guard is about...oh, deCoderize... I've seen Train Control Systems T-1 decoders for $15 in quantities > 5 from LoysToys.com http://www.loystoys.com/tcs/t1.html I've used them as basic decoders in the past and they work well: 2 functions only, dither, quiet drive, lighting functions. Digitrax DH123-D are the same price: http://www.loystoys.com/digitrax/dh123d.html These are both with 7" wire harnesses to solder; nmra plugs or other connectors cost $3 more. SignatureEd Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com > >>> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:15:59 GMT, "Chris Curren" > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I have a dozen or so HO locomotives. What's it gonna cost me to > decoderize all of them? I wouldn't use _ANY_ MRC DCC equipment on a bet[1]. Most other brands work well. I usually use Digitrax, Lenz, and TCS, in that order. You should be able to use NCE in HO, but most of their "N scale" decoders are larger for the feature count and/or drop-in Digitrax decoders with more features are available that are easier installs. Basic decoders (Motor control and a couple of functions for headlights) can be had for as low as $15.00 US each. Price goes up for more functions and sound, ESPECIALLY sound - up to around $80-120 US. As I understand it, some low-end HO locomotives are best converted using a wiring harness which will add a little to the cost. This DOES give you the advantage of being able to quickly change out decoders to share them between locomotives or quickly upgrade in the future. [1] I've had multiple bad experiences with MRC. They're _years_ behind the technology curve, their documentation is poor to non-existant, and I was never able to even change the address on a decoder using a Digitrax Chief or Zephyr system with several permutations of throttles and computer setups. MRC actually costs a LOT more, because after you buy the junk you have to turn around and buy something to replace it. Save your money and buy good stuff that actually works. SignatureEvaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars by the example of Yugos. >>>>> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:15:59 GMT, "Chris Curren" >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > the junk you have to turn around and buy something to replace it. Save > your money and buy good stuff that actually works. So. A digitrax system (programmer, power source, throttle) for $150. A dozen decoders at $15 makes about $180. So it's $330 to get going in DCC? Or is there more? This is a small home layout with mostly one operator. As opposed to a pair of DC throttles with memory and walk around control boxes. Say Rich Weygand's cooler crawlers in kit form for $89 ea ($178 for two). Or roll your own circuits, except that roll-your -own has a tendency to cost more for parts than a kit. Either way: Run two throttle buses(#14 romex house wire which I have already) around the layout. Use DPDT center off toggle switches mounted in the fascia for block control. If DCC they serve for troubleshooting. If DC, they select which throttle is connected to the block in question. Question. Why use the decoder to operate the headlamp? Just to regulate the 24 V DCC track power down enough to run a 12 volt lamp? Suppose the locomotive has the 4 diode constant on headlamps? I like my headlamps on all the time to serve as an indication that the locomotive is getting power. I gave up on the forward/reverse headlamp diodes some years ago. David Starr >>>>>> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:15:59 GMT, "Chris Curren" >>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >David Starr It's not about money. You either get it or you don't. If you don't, you're the loser. If you don't want it, don't get it. Nobody really cares what you do anyway. -- arf arf Diesel Dog > Just to regulate the 24 V DCC track power down< DCC is not 24 volts, it's 12 or depending on the system 10 or 14. >headlamps on all the time to serve as an indication that the locomotive is getting power< The headlight in DCC from the decoder does just that. You could wire it to the rails but then it would be on all the time and this could cause problems programming because of the current draw. > So. A digitrax system (programmer, power source, throttle) for $150. A > dozen decoders at $15 makes about $180. So it's $330 to get going in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for two). Or roll your own circuits, except that roll-your -own has a > tendency to cost more for parts than a kit. No. The proposed DCC system above can run 10 trains at a time. You need _TEN_ cooler crawlers for an equitable comparison... for a total of $890. > Question. Why use the decoder to operate the headlamp? It's a freebie, (some kind of headlight control comes with nearly every motor decoder) so why NOT use it? > Just to > regulate the 24 V DCC track power down enough to run a 12 volt lamp? > Suppose the locomotive has the 4 diode constant on headlamps? I like my > headlamps on all the time to serve as an indication that the locomotive > is getting power. I gave up on the forward/reverse headlamp diodes some > years ago. That's all well and good... but locomotives don't sit in the yard with their lights on all the time when they're "between trains"... and then there's dimming when in a siding, Mars lights, Gyralights, one or two strobes (flashing once or twice, together or alternately, directionally dependent or constant on...), rotary beacons... SignatureEvaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars by the example of Yugos. >> So. A digitrax system (programmer, power source, throttle) for $150. A >> dozen decoders at $15 makes about $180. So it's $330 to get going in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > _TEN_ cooler crawlers for an equitable comparison... for a total of > $890. What about "This is a small home layout with mostly one operator" didn't you understand? The man doesn't want to run 10 trains at once. I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's a matter of opinion - i.e. theology. If you must argue theology here, try to get your premises correct. SignatureIt's turtles, all the way down >>> So. A digitrax system (programmer, power source, throttle) for $150. A >>> dozen decoders at $15 makes about $180. So it's $330 to get going in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's a matter of opinion - i.e. > theology. If you must argue theology here, try to get your premises correct. Is is a matter of opinion, but rationally, not theology. A layout builder/designer must decide what capability he or she wants, the amount of money to budget, how much time to invest in implementation, and which aspects of that implementation are of interest. And whether he or she thinks a particular implementation is "cool." (I'm a computer geek, so to me, DCC is cool; others may decide the analog DC route is more cool). For the electrical system, there are trade-offs. In general, for multiple train control, even by a single operator, DCC is simpler to wire and run, though more expensive. For example, I built a simple Atlas 4x8 foot layout (#8, if I remember: two concentric loops, a a couple of simple yards) which involved six blocks to isolate the loops, the yard tracks, and a spur track; for two operators, I needed two power supplies, and six toggles, and a bunch of time to cut gaps and wire the whole thing up. But the electrical was fairly inexpensive, even using off the shelf components (MRC power packs, atlas switches, etc.). The same layout for DCC involved no gapping, no switches, and running enough feeders to make sure there was no current drop; but using an empire builder, it was A LOT more expensive, but easier to run for two or more operators, or even for just me. For my current layout (see web site), I went with DCC for ease of operation and wiring, even though with six power districts, the wiring was not that much simpler, and I even have a toggle switch to convert one siding into a programming / operating / off track. (Heck, wiring up the turnout machines to a control panel was way more complicated than train control). But budget was not my main concern; The control stuff (adding a SuperChief 8 amp to the system, PM42 for district power distribution and protection, etc.) cost more than just a bunch of toggles and a couple of power supplies. But it sure is easy to run, and the six districts make fault isolation easy (a light lights up on the PM42 which is labeled). So the rational decision is not religious (or not necessarily religious). There are a bunch of trade-offs, and the new layout builder/designer needs to consider them and discard the religious nonsense. -- Ed Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com > >> So. A digitrax system (programmer, power source, throttle) for $150. A > >> dozen decoders at $15 makes about $180. So it's $330 to get going in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What about "This is a small home layout with mostly one operator" didn't you > understand? The man doesn't want to run 10 trains at once. Where did he say that he didn't _want_ to run ten trains? What part of "mostly" did you interpret to mean "exclusively"? One operator does NOT preclude running multiple trains, and "mostly one operator" implies "sometimes more than one operator". I've done as many as 4 at a time myself for several hours at a public show on a fairly small layout with two mains. (Try that on analog without losing your sanity...) Even limiting it to _just_ 4 trains, you're still at $356 JUST for the cooler crawlers. ...plus wiring and switches.... > I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's a matter of opinion - i.e. > theology. If you must argue theology here, try to get your premises correct. And _I_ will say it again: Comparisons based on price that fail to take into consideration the MUCH higher capabilities of digital over analog control are invalid at best, and often deliberately misleading. This isn't "theology", it's simple honest logic. SignatureEvaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars by the example of Yugos. > And _I_ will say it again: Comparisons based on price that fail to take > into consideration the MUCH higher capabilities of digital over analog > control are invalid at best, and often deliberately misleading. There is such a thing as cost effective design. I will readily grant that DCC offers higher performance in terms of number of trains operable at one time, and freedom from block toggles. It also seems to be more expensive, largely from the need for a $15-20 decoder in each locomotive. I may decide to spend the savings from skipping DCC to purchase rolling stock or scenery or ..... Talk to me about trouble shooting a DCC layout. I can wire and troubleshoot analog DC layouts with nothing more than a VOM. When a train fails to move on a DCC layout what does the operator do? How do you isolate failures in the wiring, the decoder, the power pack, the programming, short circuits....???? David Starr > Talk to me about trouble shooting a DCC layout. I can wire and >troubleshoot analog DC layouts with nothing more than a VOM. When a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >David Starr Here's the talk. I don't think you even need a VOM to troubleshoot a DCC system. If you have a short circuit because of a misaligned turnout, or a foreign object on the track, that is neither easier, nor more difficult to locate on either type of system. The DCC system will audibly alert you to the presence of a short, the do-it-yourself, home engineered DC system may or may not. In the ten plus years that I have been using DCC, the two previously mentioned examples are the only ones I can think of where short circuits have occurred. If a train doesn't run, and it is one that previously did run, listen for the beep that alerts for shorts. If you don't hear the beep, check the cleanliness of the track. If the track is clean, check the engine's wheels for dirt. No dirt? Look to see if the power supply lights are on. If another engine will run, anywhere on the layout, but the one in question will not, then that engine has a problem, not the DCC system. If you are determined to use test equipment to troubleshoot, then make a light bulb with clips to test for track current. It the bulb comes on, but the train won't run, you have an engine problem. If the bulb won't come on check the feed wire for that segment of track, or the track connectors. Unlike DC systems, once a DCC system operates the first time, it will operate forever. There is nothing to change, there is no operator input of any kind, there is no way to set up conflicting blocks, bridge block gaps, cross-connect throttles or any of a thousand things that can cause DC systems to misbehave. You cannot run into someone else's block and lose control of your train, because you control the locomotive, not the track it is running on, You cannot stop on a gap and short circuit the blocks, because there are no block gaps. They are not needed. You cannot have failure of block selector switches and myriad control panel devices, because there are no control panels. Everything you need to run one train or one hundred trains is in the palm of your hand. It is so easy and simple that it almost defies comparison with conventional DC systems. Edgar Buchannan Jr. unclejoe@shadyresthotel.com > There is such a thing as cost effective design. I will readily grant > that DCC offers higher performance in terms of number of trains operable > at one time, and freedom from block toggles. It also seems to be more > expensive, largely from the need for a $15-20 decoder in each > locomotive. I may decide to spend the savings from skipping DCC to > purchase rolling stock or scenery or ..... Depends on your layout and your DC design. At my old club's layout (ca. 1953 & 1978), we had 8 mainline cabs, each with 50 bat handled DPDT toggles ($5 ea. for $250 per cab = $2000). That's also a lot of wire ($$$). I could run it all on DCC for less money if I wired it simply and didn't buy too many decoders. > Talk to me about trouble shooting a DCC layout. I can wire and > troubleshoot analog DC layouts with nothing more than a VOM. When a > train fails to move on a DCC layout what does the operator do? How do > you isolate failures in the wiring, the decoder, the power pack, the > programming, short circuits....???? Oh, boy. You haven't lived until you've trouble shot a 40 year old layout (which I did in the 1990's before my club moved). I can match you, one for one, for every possible DCC trouble shooting story with one from my DC experiences. Ever try to track down a floating block problem? Or find where a block is bleeding into another? Ever had bad toggles? Or Power Routing that doesn't? I've seen just about everything with DC problems. Not to say that DCC doesn't have it's own problems, but a big DC layout is hardly a bed of roses. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* > There is such a thing as cost effective design. I will readily grant that > DCC offers higher performance in terms of number of trains operable at one > time, and freedom from block toggles. It also seems to be more expensive, > largely from the need for a $15-20 decoder in each locomotive. I may > decide to spend the savings from skipping DCC to purchase rolling stock or > scenery or ..... David, thanks for your comments... out of interest, how many locos (approximate) do you have, and how many trains do you operate at one time? The thing here is that the DC layout has it's costs related to how many trains can be run while the DCC layout has an ever increasing cost of providing decoders to the locos themselves. In other words, if I have 10 locos and can run 4 of them at a time, the DC layout will cost the four controllers while the DCC layout will cost the base, 4 controllers AND the module in each of 10 locos with another loco added costing for the DCC conversion also. Thus, If I add in another 5 locos to my loco roster for some reason, the additional cost for the DC layout is nothing while the cost for the DCC layout is an addtional decoder module for each of the new locos. -- Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds? > The thing here is that the DC layout has it's costs related to how many > trains can be run while the DCC layout has an ever increasing cost of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > module in each of 10 locos with another loco added costing for the DCC > conversion also. Not necessarily. The event I mentioned above (running 4 trains on two mains by myself) I used _one_ controller, with one train on each track active. I let one train on each main run, and keep the other on the throttle so the speed could be adjusted. I run a Digitrax system, so the throttles I have were capable of controlling two trains simultaneously. So, _one_ controller. In addition, I was running one locomotive WITHOUT a decoder using "zero stretching"... so, only three decoders. The base unit that he mentioned was undoubtedly the Zephyr (going by the price he quoted). It has one single throttle built in, but that can easily be switched to any train address. I've used it to control three trains at a time myself just using the single throttle. It also has two "jump ports", that allow using a 'smooth DC' voltage source as a digital throttle. Several folks have built theirs using a 9 volt battery, a rheostat, and a reversing toggle in a plastic box, which I'm sure you can see is _far_ cheaper than the cited 'cooler crawler'. > Thus, If I add in another 5 locos to my loco roster for some reason, the > additional cost for the DC layout is nothing while the cost for the DCC > layout is an addtional decoder module for each of the new locos. However, if you want to actually RUN those five locos on analog like you would be able to on digital once the decoders are in them, then you probably have to add at least one new rotary switch for every block, and do all the associated wiring, and add a new throttle for every locomotive. Which do you think is easier? Roundhouse queens don't cost anything more with DCC either. ...and if you don't want to run them at the same time, well, if you have a Digitrax or Lenz system you can run them without decoders, too. SignatureEvaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars by the example of Yugos. Controller - hand held device that contains at the minimum a speed control and a direction control. With this definition of a controller, you probably could run two locos at the same time but they will always do so at all times, a stupid restriction. I can change the era of my layout just by changing the locos and cars for the most part. This means that I've got several times the number of locos that can run on the layout (or just sit in the enginehouse area ready for service) that the layout can hold and look right. If I want to have another loco, I just go buy it and detail it. No need to work on the adding (with more additional expense) of a DCC module in the loco or anything like that. Besides, I can only run one loco at a time anyway without having troubles keeping track of the second train - autopilot trains excepted and that is just toy train operation anyway. As a result, I'm sticking with DC operation. -- Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds? > Controller - hand held device that contains at the minimum a speed control > and a direction control. My Digitrax controllers have two independent throttles on each. Two knobs, two direction controls, two trains at a time with fully independent control. I've used them to run two completely separate trains, two steam engines under independent control on a single train, and even two switchers working both ends of a train. Yes, it's very challenging to do that... that's _WHY_ I like it. > With this definition of a controller, you probably could run two locos at > the same time but they will always do so at all times, a stupid restriction. You know, if this actually made sense I'd be able to reply to it... > I can change the era of my layout just by changing the locos and cars for > the most part. This means that I've got several times the number of locos > that can run on the layout (or just sit in the enginehouse area ready for > service) that the layout can hold and look right. If I want to have another > loco, I just go buy it and detail it. No need to work on the adding (with > more additional expense) of a DCC module in the loco or anything like that. You have more locos than you can run, you've detailed them in addition to parts included from the manufacturer... and you're complaining about the cost of adding a $15 DCC chip? Hmmm... just how much do you spend on detail parts for those locomotives? ROTFLMAO!! > Besides, I can only run one loco at a time anyway without having troubles > keeping track of the second train - autopilot trains excepted and that is > just toy train operation anyway. As a result, I'm sticking with DC > operation. That's fine. But you know, running only one train at a time is probably the ultimate in "toy train operation". Real railroads run _trains_, not "train". SignatureEvaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars by the example of Yugos. > But you know, running only one train at a time is probably the ultimate > in "toy train operation". Real railroads run _trains_, not "train". Now it's my turn. ROTFLMAO!! It's all toys, Joe. All your scheduling,waybills, whatever, it's still playing with toys. The only activity that isn't is the actual model building. And that's a hobby all in itself, whether you're modelling rolling stock, structures, scenery, ships, airplanes, or whatever. SignatureIt's turtles, all the way down Larry, I completely agree with you! I've never considered DCC to be to an advantage when operating trains although it will also allow for computer control of the trains. What amazes me even more is the addition of turnout control to the DCC system! -- Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds? > Larry, I completely agree with you! I've never considered DCC to be to an > advantage when operating trains although it will also allow for computer > control of the trains. What amazes me even more is the addition of turnout > control to the DCC system! If you can't see that running a train by DCC is an advantage over DC... Please explain why you don't consider DCC to be an advantage. I grant you that it's more money. I grant you that it's more complicated. But when working, it's hands down a superior method of train control over conventional DC in any form. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* what does your tag line mean? > Paul A. Cutler III > ************* > Weather Or No Go New Haven > ************* > what does your tag line mean? "Weather Or No Go New Haven" is one of many advertising slogans that the New York, New Haven & Hartford RR used back in the day, and is still legibly painted on an ex-NH RR bridge near my home, which is why I use it. Others were "The Key To New England", "The Aristocrat Of New England Transporation", "Train Yourself To Relax", "Center To Center Convenience", etc. They had a whole advertising campaign based on "Go New Haven". Here's a radio jingle from 1962: http://www.gis.net/~fm/NH_Radio.wav As for what it means, it means that no matter if the weather is good or bad, you can depend on the NH to get you where you need to go, unlike the airlines which can be severly impacted by fog, rain, wind, snow, etc. The idea, while sound, didn't help the NH too much. The NH's ridership between New York and Boston went from 1,800,000 in 1952 to 300,000 in 1968. I used to put funny quotes or different things in my sig, but it got be too much work. ;-) Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* ah, very kewl... thanks for the education! >> what does your tag line mean? > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Weather Or No Go New Haven > ************* > > Larry, I completely agree with you! I've never considered DCC to be to an > > advantage when operating trains although it will also allow for computer [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Paul A. Cutler III > ************* I don't like the extra push buttons, Led screens, shift functions needed to change loco's using DCC systems. It does not fit in with pre computer era layouts. I use both systems, DCC is only better when you compare it with a poorly designed DC system. Compare it to a properly designed DC system, and your DCC advantages disappear. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet >> > Larry, I completely agree with you! I've never considered DCC to be to an >> > advantage when operating trains although it will also allow for computer [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I don't like the extra push buttons, Led screens, shift functions > needed to change loco's using DCC systems. Gezz! What DCC system were you using? "Select Loco" (1 button), "enter engine number" (2 or 4 buttons), "Enter" (1 button) for an NCE system. If I'm running two trains on my clubs layout there are 37 button pushes to make one round on the main line running DC. Thats 37 per loop for DC vs 13 once for DCC. Ok, occasionaly I have to use the "Recall" button to toggle between trains for a speed adjustment. DC loses on the button pushing count. The speed adjustment with a digital readout vs the DC cab dial is a wash. > It does not fit in with pre computer era layouts. How many pre 1950 layouts do you run on? > I use both systems, DCC is only better when you > compare it with a poorly designed DC system. Compare it to a properly > designed DC system, and your DCC advantages disappear. On your 4'x8' oval that's probably true. Paul > > I don't like the extra push buttons, Led screens, shift functions > > needed to change loco's using DCC systems. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > DC loses on the button pushing count. I visit and operate layouts using the NEC system you describe. On the DC club layout I operate on it currently allows me to run 8 trains on the mainlines with no button pushes to get around. The trains are in what the committee calls display mode. Every one else calls it as automatic mode. And the layout wiring is only about half complete. The club layout has track detection and a PLC to do the button pushing. It's not the way I would do things, it's more complex than necessary and cost's more than the way I would do things, but it works well and is reliable because it uses industrial wiring methods. So DCC looses the button count when compared to my local DC club layout example. On my old manually switched cab control layout it took 2 key switches and 2 plugs to get a train around the mainline. That set the signals as well. Still ahead of your NEC button count. > The speed adjustment with a digital readout vs the DC cab dial is > a wash. I disagree, Give me a decent sized dial with a toggle switch for direction any day over a poorly positioned and undersized dial or thumb wheel combined with the direction switch hidden amongst dozens of inconveniently positioned push buttons. > > It does not fit in with pre computer era layouts. > > How many pre 1950 layouts do you run on? On our local prototype computer controls in locomotives did not appear until much later, closer to the 1980's. I prefer to run steam. > > I use both systems, DCC is only better when you > > compare it with a poorly designed DC system. Compare it to a properly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Paul Yes the DC button count advantage exists for the 4'x8' oval as well. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet There is a simple reason that DC will always lose out to DCC and that's voltage on the track. Specs of dust can stop a DC motor on half a volt DC but with DCC there is always 12 volts on the rails and to get that half volt it uses 12 volt spikes. Terry can argue until the cows come home but DCC just operates better. Also I do understand sequential block control with signaling, a friend had it and it cost a bunch. He now is using NCE and scrapped the sequential block control. Also sound is not easy on DC, it exists but has nowhere the control it has with DCC. Those who like DC can keep it and I think that's fine but one fact remains, I know of no person who has converted to DCC, decided they didn't like it and went back to DC. If you know of anyone I would like to talk to them and listen to their reasons. > There is a simple reason that DC will always lose out to DCC and that's > voltage on the track. Specs of dust can stop a DC motor on half a volt DC [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > like it and went back to DC. If you know of anyone I would like to talk to > them and listen to their reasons. What is everyone's favorite brand of DCC, both decoders and all the rest of the stuff. By the way, what is the rest of the stuff called. How much more does it cost to get wireless walkaround throttles? David Starr > What is everyone's favorite brand of DCC< A favorite brand is kind of like PCs and Apples, both have they detractors or lovers. Most all DCC systems are good it's just a matter of what you want. >both decoders and all the rest of the stuff.< I mix decoders of all brands, this is the basic concept of DCC. >By the way, what is the rest of the stuff called.< It's probably best to buy a DCC book so you can understand the concept then start looking at brands. >How much more does it cost to get wireless walkaround throttles?< All the major manfactures have web sites for the MSRP. You can then go to the major mailorder sites for street price. It's generally a 20% discount. >> What is everyone's favorite brand of DCC< > A favorite brand is kind of like PCs and Apples, both have they > detractors or lovers. Most all DCC systems are good it's just a matter of > what you want. While I basically agree with Jon on this, I *would* recommend that one stay away from the DCC "systems" being sold as a sideline. In other words, buy your DCC system from a manufacturer who makes nothing but DCC systems. While most if not all of those "sideline" DCC systems are easy to plug together and learn how to use, they almost universally have serious deficiencies in the long term when it comes to the ability to either expand or to increase their capabilities. Stevert > I visit and operate layouts using the NEC system you describe. What does the National Electric Code have to do with any of this? >> The speed adjustment with a digital readout vs the DC cab dial is >> a wash. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wheel combined with the direction switch hidden amongst dozens of > inconveniently positioned push buttons. We were counting button pushes. This is just your personal preference. You apparently have some luddite reaction to buttons. >>> It does not fit in with pre computer era layouts. >> How many pre 1950 layouts do you run on? > > On our local prototype computer controls in locomotives did not appear > until much later, closer to the 1980's. That was nonresponsive; you were referencing layouts which predated the computer era not the era that the layout models. > I prefer to run steam. I'm happy for you. Paul > We were counting button pushes. This is just your personal preference. > You apparently have some luddite reaction to buttons. I programmed computers for 45 years. I STILL hate button pushing :-). PS: The Luddites were right :-). SignatureIt's turtles, all the way down > The Luddites were right :-). Especially inasmuch as they were eally opposed not to technology per se, but to the destruction of their culture and family life that the reorganization of work to make things convenient for the machine owners entailed. SignatureSteve The command on the display says push any key. Will the Shift Key do? -- Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds? >> We were counting button pushes. This is just your personal preference. >> You apparently have some luddite reaction to buttons. >> > I programmed computers for 45 years. Got me beat, I've only been doing it for 36 years. > I STILL hate button pushing :-). Which is why I don't like DC, all the DC layouts I've seen (including the one at ACCRS) require LOTS of button pushing and require more of it the more trains you run at one time. We have some single track sections and running just one of 3 trains in the opposite direction it's a continuous series of button pushing (cab control is via blender buttons). > PS: The Luddites were right :-). If the luddites don't like buttons they should consider adopting button pushing minimization techniques. If Terry doesn't like buttons thats ok but, trying to justify it with a corner case environmoent is ridiculous. For shows where we just run trains in a circle hour after hour we could be winding them up each go around for all the difference it would make (THAT'S VERY SIMPLE WIRING!!). Paul SignatureThe lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now. Modular furniture is cruel and unusual. > >> We were counting button pushes. This is just your personal preference. > >> You apparently have some luddite reaction to buttons. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and running just one of 3 trains in the opposite direction it's a > continuous series of button pushing (cab control is via blender buttons). That's what I call a poorly designed DC control system. > > PS: The Luddites were right :-). > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Paul Simple but boring for the operators and viewing public. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet >> >> We were counting button pushes. This is just your personal preference. >> >> You apparently have some luddite reaction to buttons. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > That's what I call a poorly designed DC control system. Call it what you want. Would you care to elaborate on what you think is "poor" about it? >> > PS: The Luddites were right :-). >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Simple but boring for the operators and viewing public. The viewing public, for the most part, seems to enjoy it year after year. Operational it's a totally numbing experience, which was the point in mentioning it; How interesting could the layout you described be? : On my old manually switched cab control layout it took 2 key : switches and 2 plugs to get a train around the mainline. Paul > >> >> We were counting button pushes. This is just your personal preference. > >> >> You apparently have some luddite reaction to buttons. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Call it what you want. Would you care to elaborate on what you think > is "poor" about it? Manually switched Cab control as you describe results in numerous button pushes which do not correspond with a prototype action, for example controlling a signal or a turnout. It also means the switch can be easily changed to another controller, in other words it's easy to make a mistake with unprototypical consequences. > >> > PS: The Luddites were right :-). > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > year. Operational it's a totally numbing experience, which was the > point in mentioning it; No doubt. > How interesting could the layout you described be? > > : On my old manually switched cab control layout it took 2 key > : switches and 2 plugs to get a train around the mainline. > > Paul I found it interesting to operate because what I described was the simplest train operation on the layout, an express train which does not stop. All other trains would stop at my station, and would be required to do different things, according to what type of train it was. One empty coal train for example would be required to go into the up yard, detach from its train, cross to the down yard, turn on the turntable, cross back to the up yard and put the brake van on the opposite end. Then it could return in the direction it came to go onto the colliery branch. It would enter the colliery and after running around the empty coal wagons, would pick up some full wagons and back onto its brake van. Then off it would go. While this was happening main line action was still in progress. It kept me interested in operations. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet > In article <1156218147.184055.234040@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >> "NSWGR" <tgflynn@unsw.edu.au> writes:> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Manually switched Cab control as you describe results in numerous > button pushes which do not correspond with a prototype action, You'll have to do a lot more explaining on this one. > for example controlling a signal or a turnout. Cab control has has nothing to do with switch control. The dispatcher dispatches, i.e. controls the switches. Engineers drive the trains, i.e. they need control of the block in order to operate. Or do your prototypes have dispatchers driving trains and engineers routing trains? > It also means the switch can be easily changed to another controller, > in other words it's easy to make a mistake with unprototypical > consequences. You are making no sense at all. Paul SignatureThe lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now. Modular furniture is cruel and unusual. > > In article <1156218147.184055.234040@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > >> "NSWGR" <tgflynn@unsw.edu.au> writes:> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > your prototypes have dispatchers driving trains and engineers routing > trains? I have seen manually switched DC cab control layouts were the dispatcher controls the cab selection switches. That's an example of bad DC layout design in my view. On the prototype drivers do not control blocks, therefore manually switched DC layouts that do this are another poor design. However if the cab selection also operates the signals, then you have a prototype result for your action of cab selection. Operating the cab switch is now part of a safe working procedure of a signalman for example. If your layout has a dispatcher controlling turnouts, you have CTC. If you do not have track detection expecting the dispatcher to control turnouts is a layout operation design mistake. If your DC control system has detectors, then the extra to make block selection automatic for DC block control is easy to do. A low tech non computer system only requires one relay per block. > > It also means the switch can be easily changed to another controller, > > in other words it's easy to make a mistake with unprototypical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Paul I'm sure the DCC supporters here know of the 'who has my train' DC cab control call. That's why I prefer my DC block control over DC cab control for most layouts. DC block control is more suited for large layouts compared to DC cab control and if you build your own system, you can customise it to to simulate a specific prototypes safe working procedures. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet > >> >> We were counting button pushes. This is just your personal preference. > >> >> You apparently have some luddite reaction to buttons. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Call it what you want. Would you care to elaborate on what you think > is "poor" about it? Cab control through rotary switches that is not interlocked to a signaling or other safe working system results in frequent mistakes being made. Also the more cabs you need, the more difficult it becomes to wire and run. My web page gives examples of better ways to wire your manually switched DC layout. > >> > PS: The Luddites were right :-). > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > year. Operational it's a totally numbing experience, which was the > point in mentioning it; When I used to operate an exhibition layout using DC, I would only run each train around ounce. With one rotary switch to operate the storage yard, it was easy to change trains. More interesting for the viewing public, not much interest for the layout operator. > How interesting could the layout you described be? > > : On my old manually switched cab control layout it took 2 key > : switches and 2 plugs to get a train around the mainline. > > Paul See my web page for details of my old layout. There was plenty of operational variety. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet >> >> >> We were counting button pushes. This is just your personal preference. >> >> >> You apparently have some luddite reaction to buttons. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Cab control through rotary switches No rotary switches, where did you get that idea? > that is not interlocked to a > signaling or other safe working system results in frequent mistakes > being made. Also the more cabs you need, the more difficult it becomes > to wire and run. My web page gives examples of better ways to wire your > manually switched DC layout. >> >> > PS: The Luddites were right :-). >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > yard, it was easy to change trains. More interesting for the viewing > public, not much interest for the layout operator. One train!? It takes twenty minutes to run a train around the layout NOW THAT'S BORING!! A train will be by every twenty minutes please come back in 19 minutes!! GREAT!! >> How interesting could the layout you described be? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > See my web page for details of my old layout. There was plenty of > operational variety. So I can operate one train at a time!? Why? Paul SignatureThe lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now. Modular furniture is cruel and unusual. > > We were counting button pushes. This is just your personal preference. > > You apparently have some luddite reaction to buttons. > > I programmed computers for 45 years. I STILL hate button pushing :-). > > PS: The Luddites were right :-). So is it easier to program analog or digital computers? Hmmm? (My mother programmed and operated an analog computer back in the 1950's... it was done with patch cords and rotary switches! Gee, that sounds familiar...) Give me digital buttons any day. SignatureEvaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars by the example of Yugos. >> DC loses on the button pushing count. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are in what the committee calls display mode. Every one else calls it > as automatic mode. Can you describe it further? >>> DC loses on the button pushing count. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Can you describe it further? But someone had to press or toggle one for each block on the "automatic" circle, including setting any turnouts in the right direction. Assuming every selection is incorrect at the out set, the equivalent for my DCC layout (which can only run two trains in loops unattended) is to set each turnout in right direction, select each loco on the DT400 (4 digit addresses means 6 buttons per loco), then set the directions (one for each), the twist each speed knob the desired speed, and let them run until I get tired, the electricity fails, or something goes off the tracks. I usually get tired first. But I think button counting to determine the superiority of one over the other is silly and pointless. The question is still, what capabilities do you want, which implementation do you prefer to build, how much can you afford, and which way do you prefer to operate. I tried both and prefer DCC; others will reach a different conclusion with exactly the same layout as I have. SignatureEd Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com Actually, I built a system back in the early '60s (from a MR article) that was able to run several trains automatically on a single loop. Ultimately, I found the system to be basically boring just to see 3 trains chase each other about on some track. -- Yeppie, Bush is such an idiot that He usually outwits everybody else. How dumb! > >>> DC loses on the button pushing count. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But someone had to press or toggle one for each block on the "automatic" > circle, including setting any turnouts in the right direction. If it was DCC the same push button to operate the turnouts would be needed. DCC still requires more button pushes in this case. > Assuming every selection is incorrect at the out set, the equivalent for my > DCC layout (which can only run two trains in loops unattended) is to set [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tired, the electricity fails, or something goes off the tracks. I usually > get tired first. With DC you don't need 6 button pushes per loco to select locos. > But I think button counting to determine the superiority of one over the > other is silly and pointless. The question is still, what capabilities do [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > http://homepage.mac.com/edoates > DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com Button pushing is a simple measure of how easy it is to operate. It's only one factor and the other factors you have mentioned are also important. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet > >> DC loses on the button pushing count. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Can you describe it further? The temporary system consists of 8 blocks for each mainline loop. 4 trains run on each mainline loop. Each block has a simple inertia darlington pair controller, a relay and a track current detector based on a diode bridge and optocoupler. Logic is controlled by a PLC If the block ahead of a train is occupied a relay contact connects the inertia control voltage through a resister to ground, slowing down the train to a stop if necessary. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet Terry Flynn <tgflynn@unsw.edu.au> wrote in message news:1156390117.053182.155690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> Can you describe it further? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > control voltage through a resister to ground, slowing down the train to > a stop if necessary. Why is it a temporary system? > Terry Flynn <tgflynn@unsw.edu.au> wrote in message > news:1156390117.053182.155690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Why is it a temporary system? It has it's limitations, one limit is the different top speeds of models, especially now we have DC sound equipped models on the market. It was designed to be a quick and easy way to get trains running while construction and wiring of the final system continues. The final system will have about 10 main line walk around controllers with in cab signals (one green and one red led). No serial communication is used between the layout and PLC's. All logic is done at the PLC software level. Signaling will follow our local prototypes block system which includes 5 and 6 lamp signals. It will have a central traffic controller who will control the main line turnouts and allocation of main line controllers. It's not my design so I am not familiar with all the details though it appears to be a automatic cab selection system. I do know the layout probably has about 3 times as many blocks than I think are necessary. I am told the number of blocks will be about 100. 6 yards associated with the main line will have a control panel which will have push button route selection. These yards will have one or 2 local controllers which can be locally switched in by holding on a button on the hand controller when selecting the route in the yard. There are a number of electrical tradesmen in control of the layout wiring, so it's done by the book, every wire is identified and numbered at each terminal point, and the documentation rivals the thickest manuals that come with DCC systems. There is allot of wiring on this system compared to most alternatives, DC or DCC. The final method of DC control of the branch lines is not decided yet. Give me a no software DC progressive block control system any day. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet >> Why is it a temporary system? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > do know the layout probably has about 3 times as many blocks than I > think are necessary. I am told the number of blocks will be about 100. 1) Are these electrical blocks, or signaling blocks? 2) What's a "PLC"? ____ Mark > >> Why is it a temporary system? > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 1) Are these electrical blocks, or signaling blocks? I checked with the designer, there are probably about 25 electrical blocks that are switched between mainline cabs, and each yard has 1 or 2 electrical blocks that switch between cabs. The rest are detector blocks. It looks like enough detection is being done to fully automate the layout and lock turnouts when trains are over them. > 2) What's a "PLC"? > > ____ > Mark Programmable Logic controller. These are relatively expensive devices used in industry for control. A computer can do the same job. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet >> 1) Are these electrical blocks, or signaling blocks? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > blocks. It looks like enough detection is being done to fully automate > the layout and lock turnouts when trains are over them. Thanks for the reply... that ratio seems to answer the question of why there are about 3 times more blocks than you feel are necessary for operation. About 3/4 are for detection. >>> 1) Are these electrical blocks, or signaling blocks? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > are about 3 times more blocks than you feel are necessary for operation. > About 3/4 are for detection. WRT block detection and anti-collision DCC systems, LoysToys is reporting in this month's newletter that TCS will be introducing a new DCC system next year built with automation, transponding, anti-collision, and signaling in mind. It is reported that no complicated blocking or block detection hardware will be required. There is more information in the LoysToys newsletter of 9/06. It sound interesting... SignatureEd Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com > >>> 1) Are these electrical blocks, or signaling blocks? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > -- > Ed Oates Interesting but I suspect a bit of advertising hype. There a couple of practical methods of train detection on model railways, track block sensing current, mechanical switches, reed switches or optical detection. Other than just looking, all the rest require hardware and extra wiring, DC or DCC. The exception to extra wiring is if you replace wiring with radio communications between hardware devices. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet >> 1) Are these electrical blocks, or signaling blocks? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > blocks. It looks like enough detection is being done to fully automate > the layout and lock turnouts when trains are over them. Do the detector blocks use block detection circuits, or do they have switches on the control panel? > I don't like the extra push buttons, Led screens, shift functions > needed to change loco's using DCC systems. It does not fit in with pre > computer era layouts. I use both systems, DCC is only better when you > compare it with a poorly designed DC system. Compare it to a properly > designed DC system, and your DCC advantages disappear. Yeah, yeah, I know, Terry. Your "properly" designed DC layout would probably cost more than a DCC layout and do less besides. I can run up to 9 trains at a time via throttles (6 trains via wireless) on my point-to-point 25' x 50's layout with a 200' double track mainline with four yards. I do it all with only two 14AWG wires under the mainline with feeders every 9 feet. Time spent under the benchwork: minimal. Cost: from tonystrains.com: Digitrax Zephyr = $160 3 x Digitrax DT400R: @$180 ea. = $540 Digitrax UR91 radio receiver = $115 3 x Digitrax UP5 Loconet sockets: @ $16 ea. = $48 10 x Digitrax DH123 decoders: @ $16 ea. = $160 from mouser.com: 2 x 100' of 14AWG stranded red: @ $50 ea. = $100 2 x 100' of 14AWG stranded black: @ $50 ea. = $100 1 x 100' 22AWG stranded red = $16 1 x 100' 22AWG stranded black = $16 from radioshack.com: 2 x 100' 24AWG 6 cond. cable: @ $4 ea. = $8 Total = $1268 Terry, Please demonstrate, if you can, a "properly designed" DC system that will do everything that my DCC does for under $1300, using only commercially available products (no custom built throttles for example...if you need an advanced degree in electrical engineering to build it, it should not apply as most model RR's are not that advanced you have to admit). For the record: 6 wireless dual throttles 3 bench mounted throttles 200' of double track mainline 2 freight yards 1 passenger terminal 1 staging yard 2 industrial branchlines Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* > > I don't like the extra push buttons, Led screens, shift functions > > needed to change loco's using DCC systems. It does not fit in with pre [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Paul A. Cutler III Paul, I am unaware of any commercial DC radio control system currently available. However your decoder cost is low, not many trains with more than one locomotive on them or spare locomotives for locomotive changes, or yard shunters. One DC commercial system which will give DCC a run for it's money will be the Oak Tree system http://www.oaktreesystems.com/ when they get their walk around throttles on the market. There is no reason why they will not cost the same as your DCC tethered throttles. They charge $150 for 8 blocks. You would need around 16 DC blocks for your layout. So we spend $300 instead to run 9 trains, which is more on paper if you only have 8 DCC locomotives on your layout. If we have 2 locomotives on each train, the DC DCC price difference is gone. Add another DCC locomotive to the layout DCC is starting to loose on cost. Yes this commercial DC system requires a computer and software but it does have in cab signaling, and automatic train control, something your DCC system does not have for this price. Unfourtunately if you look at commercial DC systems beyond a simple controller, we jump to computer control DC so direct comparisons with many commercial DCC systems is not straight forward. The other hardware costs for both systems will be the same. http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet > Paul, I am unaware of any commercial DC radio control system currently > available. However your decoder cost is low, not many trains with more > than one locomotive on them or spare locomotives for locomotive > changes, or yard shunters. First, I'll even help you out, Terry. There is a DC radio system out there from Aristo-Craft. Secondly, I'll double my decoder cost to 20 locos total @ $16 ea. = $320. The new total would be $1428. Better? > One DC commercial system which will give DCC a run for it's money will > be the Oak Tree system http://www.oaktreesystems.com/ when they get > their walk around throttles on the market. Ok. Let me know when they get radio throttles. > There is no reason why they will not cost the same as your DCC > tethered throttles. See, the nice thing is that my "tethered" throttles? Yeah, one of them is the Zephyr itself, and the other two are old DC throttle packs I had alying around wired into the Zephyr's jump ports. > They charge $150 for 8 blocks. You would need > around 16 DC blocks for your layout. So we spend $300 instead to run 9 > trains, which is more on paper if you only have 8 DCC locomotives on > your layout. Did you kinda forget that whole "wireless throttle" thing? > If we have 2 locomotives on each train, the DC DCC price > difference is gone. Add another DCC locomotive to the layout DCC is > starting to loose on cost. You also forgot all the wiring needed. Remember, I'm doing my entire layout with only 200' of 14AWG black and red wire. From what it sounds like, each Oak Tree block would have to be run back to the computer...meaning the cost of wiring just went up. And then there's your time. How much is that worth? > Yes this commercial DC system requires a > computer and software but it does have in cab signaling, and automatic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > many commercial DCC systems is not straight forward. The other hardware > costs for both systems will be the same. Yeah, you also forgot the cost of the software and the cost of a computer. Oops. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* > > Paul, I am unaware of any commercial DC radio control system currently > > available. However your decoder cost is low, not many trains with more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > First, I'll even help you out, Terry. There is a DC radio system out > there from Aristo-Craft. Designed for simple one train operation. > Secondly, I'll double my decoder cost to 20 locos total @ $16 ea. = > $320. The new total would be $1428. Better? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is the Zephyr itself, and the other two are old DC throttle packs I had > alying around wired into the Zephyr's jump ports. My DC tethered controllers cost about $10 to make. There just a box, cable, plug, pot, dial and a reverse switch as a minimum. Add a few resistors, leds and an extra switch or 2 for luxury features. > > They charge $150 for 8 blocks. You would need > > around 16 DC blocks for your layout. So we spend $300 instead to run 9 > > trains, which is more on paper if you only have 8 DCC locomotives on > > your layout. > > Did you kinda forget that whole "wireless throttle" thing? Commercial DC wireless controllers comparable to the digitrax ones do not exist. It's build your own or modify something. Wireless comes with its own problems and limits. > > If we have 2 locomotives on each train, the DC DCC price > > difference is gone. Add another DCC locomotive to the layout DCC is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > computer...meaning the cost of wiring just went up. And then there's your > time. How much is that worth? Each block only need 2 wires using the Oak Tree DC system you only need to go to the board, and then supply power cable to a transformer. Not much different to DCC wiring if you are sensible enough to separate your layout into separate blocks for fault finding or have train detection. The Oak tree system uses serial communication to the computer, just as your DCC system uses serial communication back to your command station. That means there is a negligible difference in wire required for both systems if you wire for reliability and easy fault finding. > > Yes this commercial DC system requires a > > computer and software but it does have in cab signaling, and automatic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yeah, you also forgot the cost of the software and the cost of a > computer. Oops. The cost of a computer and software is the same for both DCC and DC. > Paul A. Cutler III Or you can build a DC system, avoid commercial DC computer systems or DCC and save lots of money, for example using my DC home made system it would cost me less than $500 with track detection and in cab walk around signalling. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet > > > Paul, I am unaware of any commercial DC radio control system currently > > > available. However your decoder cost is low, not many trains with more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Designed for simple one train operation. Really? Then I guess that whole "A-B" switch and 3 micro toggles that allow one to change the frequency of the radio is for...what, exactly? You know, why don't you try reading up on the Aristo-Craft radio system. I used to use it before DCC, and other than it's usual DC limitations, it's not a bad system. You buy one radio reciever per train, and you can run two trains easily with only one transmitter by using the "A-B" switch if you want (and up to 16 trains total). > My DC tethered controllers cost about $10 to make. There just a box, > cable, plug, pot, dial and a reverse switch as a minimum. Add a few > resistors, leds and an extra switch or 2 for luxury features. Sigh. Didn't I say that building your own throttles was *not* germane to this debate? This if for normal modelers, Terry. Not electrical engineers. Normal model railroaders do not build their own throttles, wind their own motor windings, or etch their own circuit boards, ok? Let's try to keep this debate in the realm of the possible for non-engineers. Otherwise, I could bring into the debate the fact that you can build your own DCC decoders, throttles, software, and the like. Is that reasonable? No, but it's possible. > Commercial DC wireless controllers comparable to the digitrax ones do > not exist. It's build your own or modify something. Wireless comes with > its own problems and limits. And what would those "problems and limits" be? I've certainly never had that much of an issue with my Digitrax radios (200' range, so I've heard). BTW, too bad about the lack of DC analog radios, eh? Gee, maybe DCC does have something going for it after all... > Each block only need 2 wires using the Oak Tree DC system you only need > to go to the board, and then supply power cable to a transformer. Not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wire required for both systems if you wire for reliability and easy > fault finding. Here's the thing, Terry. I don't have my layout divided up into blocks. I haven't for several years since the Zephyr came out. I don't have a problem with chasing down any shorts because, for one, a DCC short makes a high pitched sound that one can track down by ear. Secondly, most shorts are because something's derailed....which makes it pretty easy to spot. Since everthing is wired into one giant block and 90% of my switches are Atlas Code 83's (which don't short much at all, even under a derailment), I've never had a problem. > The cost of a computer and software is the same for both DCC and DC. You need a computer for your super duper DC system, correct? I don't need a computer for my DCC layout. > Or you can build a DC system, avoid commercial DC computer systems or > DCC and save lots of money, for example using my DC home made system it > would cost me less than $500 with track detection and in cab walk > around signalling. Oh, I'm sure, I'm sure. :-) Just like that old curmudgeon in my club who used wires wrapped around nails pounded into a 2x4 for each block, then used an alligator clip to "switch" blocks on an off. He looked like an old telephone operator with wires flying all over the place, but he was happy...mainly because he was the cheapest SOB I've ever met. When we moved into our new club building in 1998, he went around and carefully pulled up 40 year old rusty rail spikes from what was left of our old layout and saved them in a jar for use on the new layout. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* >> > > Paul, I am unaware of any commercial DC radio control system currently >> > > available. However your decoder cost is low, not many trains with more [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >own DCC decoders, throttles, software, and the like. Is that reasonable? >No, but it's possible. And ad infinitum, ad nauseum . . . . . Why do you bother to get into these ridiculous exchanges with Flynn? He is either a troll or else he has some serious personality problems, one or the other. Putting him in a killfile is the best course of action. He is possessed with trying to convince the world that his wretched little DC train layout has all the features and advantages of DCC plus more, and that it cost less than any possible DCC collection of equipment. It is quite clear that his postings are those of someone who has an absolute minimum of knowledge and experience with DCC, and as such should be discounted and ignored. Flynn goes to inordinately ridiculous lengths to try to make his DC work as well as DCC, which is patently impossible except on a toy-like model railroad that runs clockwork type operations, or no operations at all. Have mercy on him and us. Ignore him. Please. > >> > > Paul, I am unaware of any commercial DC radio control system currently > >> > > available. However your decoder cost is low, not many trains with more [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > clockwork type operations, or no operations at all. Have mercy on him and us. Ignore > him. Please. Typical rantings from a DCC zealot, attacking the messenger. I have been operating DCC layouts before the NMRA published their standard. Before that I was making my own command control decoders when I was using the Dynatrol system. My web page has the proof of what my railway was like. Note it had operating signals interlocked with the turnouts. Terry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track and wheel standards Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet > And ad infinitum, ad nauseum . . . . . > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > clockwork type operations, or no operations at all. Have mercy on him and us. Ignore > him. Please. Dear Mr. Crocker, You got brass ones (and I don't mean Overland) if you think you can just come into a group as an apparent newbie and tell people who have been here for quite a while (about 10 years for me) what they can and cannot do. According to a Google group search, you've only got three posts. At least we're on-topic. Why don't you do all of us a favor and try to get rid of the spam and off-topic crap off of r.m.r rather than hassling the first decent on-topic thread in months? Terry may be a crank, but at least he doesn't bring destructive topics to this place like religion and politics...unlike some of the knuckleheads around here. The fun part of debating Terry is trying to nail him down with facts. So far, I think I've been pretty successful this time. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* > Sigh. Didn't I say that building your own throttles was *not* germane > to this debate? This if for normal modelers, Terry. Not electrical > engineers. Normal model railroaders do not build their own throttles, > wind their own motor windings, or etch their own circuit boards, ok? > Let's try to keep this debate in the realm of the possible for > non-engineers. You have hit on the very reason Flynn is so hostile towards those who advocate DCC. It greatly pisses him off that non-engineers can achieve - with little or no effort - greater operational flexibility and realism than his Heath Robinson DC contraptions will ever manage. He is a snob, pure and simple. > You have hit on the very reason Flynn is so hostile towards those who > advocate DCC. It greatly pisses him off that non-engineers can achieve - > with little or no effort - greater operational flexibility and realism > than his Heath Robinson DC contraptions will ever manage. > > He is a snob, pure and simple. The way I figure it, he's an electrical hobbiest with a side interest in trains. :-) Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* > The way I figure it, he's an electrical hobbiest with a side interest > in trains. :-) At the very least, he has a fetish for old telephone relays! ;-) mark_newton spake thus: > > The way I figure it, he's an electrical hobbiest with a side interest > > in trains. :-) > > At the very least, he has a fetish for old telephone relays! ;-) Hey, I'm still waiting for a reply to my suggestion (only 30% in jest) that someone design a DCC system using a vacuum-tube booster. 70% seriously, if they can handle the square waveforms without introducing too much distortion (push-pull class AB operation, maybe), no reason it couldn't work. Keep you warm on a cold day, too. SignatureIn order to embark on a new course, the only one that will solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah. Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace. - Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. (http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html) > mark_newton spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > introducing too much distortion (push-pull class AB operation, maybe), > no reason it couldn't work. Keep you warm on a cold day, too. Yeah! We audiophiles and guitar geeks really like tubes for their warm even harmonic distortions. Will such vacuum tube DCC (VTDCC?) make the annoying address zero buzz sound better? Maybe those square wave shoulders will be rounder and closer to a sine wave for a nice smooth beep rather than a fuzz tone zzzzzzzzzz. (100% in jest...). Maybe Marshall and Fender will get into the biz. SignatureEd Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com > Keep you warm on a cold day, too. Just the thing for being out in the garden on a chilly day, working on your 7.5" gauge live steam RR. SignatureSteve > mark_newton spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hey, I'm still waiting for a reply to my suggestion (only 30% in jest) > that someone design a DCC system using a vacuum-tube booster. I think George Grardi ( spelling ) In Sydney Australia did something along those lines in the late 60's early 70's using a analog carrier control system. Was its name called telletrains or something. I am sure that Terry Flynn/Eddie Oliver would be able to correct me on this one. > > mark_newton spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sure that Terry Flynn/Eddie Oliver would be able to correct me on this > one. PSI's DYNATROL was a carrier based system in the US from the early 70's on. http://www.tttrains.com/psidynatrol/ I used to witness some spectacular decoder burnouts in Dynatrol equipped O scale locos. Peteski > I don't like the extra push buttons, Led screens, shift functions > needed to change loco's using DCC systems. It does not fit in with pre > computer era layouts. I use both systems, DCC is only better when you > compare it with a poorly designed DC system. Compare it to a properly > designed DC system, and your DCC advantages disappear. Terry, thanks for the comment. How would you define a "properly designed DC system," or more importantly in the context of learing from other's mistakes: what makes a DC system poorly designed? > > But you know, running only one train at a time is probably the ultimate > > in "toy train operation". Real railroads run _trains_, not "train". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's all toys, Joe. All your scheduling,waybills, whatever, it's still > playing with toys. So, historical recreations of actual events is just "playing with toys"? Better tell all those military reenactors that so they can stop wasting their time, too. > The only activity that isn't is the actual model building. And that's a hobby > all in itself, whether you're modelling rolling stock, structures, scenery, > ships, airplanes, or whatever. Oh, I see. Building a model is OK, but running it is "playing". Right. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* I consider using two controllers to control two locos on a train to be basically playing with fire. I've seen enough derailments from such sillyness. There's nothing fun about having to rerail 80 cars when either the front end or the rear end decide to take a dump. -- Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds? > I consider using two controllers to control two locos on a train to be > basically playing with fire. I've seen enough derailments from such > sillyness. There's nothing fun about having to rerail 80 cars when either > the front end or the rear end decide to take a dump. I certainly haven't had that problem on my club's HO layout. I've operated 100+ car trains with rear pushers and have yet to derail a single car due to loco problems. Heck, we had two such trains following each other on the layout at speed. Of course, our layout has 40" min. radius curves and No. 8 mainline switches, which probably has something to do with it. The nice thing is the "Emergency Stop" feature of the throttles. It tends to stop things right quick if need be. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* > I gave up on the forward/reverse headlamp diodes some years ago. Why? >> I gave up on the forward/reverse headlamp diodes some years ago. > > Why? Cause there is a 50 50 chance that the headlamp you can see is the headlamp the diodes are holding dark. You hit the throttle and the train fails to move. Has this happened to anyone here? Yes? So, why is the train stuck? If the headlamp lights up anything electrical is pretty much eliminated. If the headlamp fails to light, you start checking block toggles and throttle settings and fwd/rev toggles and connectors and crawling under the layout looking for broken wires and .... We have all been there. So. Seeing the headlamp light up gives a good warm feeling that all is well in wiring hell. Diodes reduce the number of good warm feelings by 50%, cause they hold the headlamp dark 50% of the time. David Starr That's a personal preference. Directional lighting does have it's problems if you're looking for presence of power and the direction is wrong. Same basic problem happens with DCC in that directional lighting again won't indicate power. What's worse is that even if you have DCC, you don't know if you have the loco with the controller until you try to move it or do something else with it. Basically, you trade one set of problems for another of equal order. -- Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds? >That's a personal preference. Directional lighting does have it's problems >if you're looking for presence of power and the direction is wrong. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >something else with it. >Basically, you trade one set of problems for another of equal order. Part of the problem here is that you don't appear to know enough about what you're talking about to talk about it. Directional lighting is an option. You can have directional lighting or not. you can have directional lighting and have number boards and/or cab interior lights or a cabtop beacon that stays lit all the time. You can put a pilot light in the fascia, or somewhere else that is powered by track power. Any time track power is on, the light is on. Since you do not power route, or power individual tracks with DCC like you do with DC, you only need a single indicator for the entire power district- and that is only if you subdivide the layout into power districts. It's a good idea, but not mandatory. The controller tells you which engine it is linked to. All you have to do is look at the display or the selector switches. You are not equally trading one set of problems for another. You are adopting a newer and easier to use technology with only a small fraction of the potential problems of the old-fashioned DC method. Yes, you do have to learn how to use it, no one was born knowing how to use DCC. No one was born knowing how to engineer, build, maintain and operate a DC system either. The DC way is much more complex and harder to learn than the DCC way. Edgar Buchannan Jr. unclejoe@shadyresthotel.com Ype, get on the DCC question and all the idiots come out with their oddities and exceptions. It isn't that whether directional lighting is possible or not possible with DCC, it is how you handle it on the railroad. Turn on a light and if you're not able to see that light, you still don't know if the loco is live. This is the problem, not whether the lights can be lit by any particular method. Yes, I know that you can run a DC l;oco on the DCC system and no, you don't need to add additional switches to the trackwork to have the possesion of additional locos on the track! Look at any club layout and tell me that they've got enough switches to run every member's locos. No way, no how! Besides, with DC layouts, you can provide power to several locos in a consist all at the same time. Are you telling me that I've got to add in additional switches to provide additional throttles to be able to run that 3 enging consist? That's stupid! Besides, most DCC layouts use the loco number as the decoder number. How do you handle multiple railroads having the same number on a loco? -- Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds? > Besides, most DCC layouts use the loco number as the decoder number. How > do > you handle multiple railroads having the same number on a loco? You might get away using a different number -- just don't tell the police. :)) >How do you handle multiple railroads having the same number on a loco?< Usually this happens in clubs with different members owning the same engines which have the same numbers. BUT clubs in my area pay no attention to engine numbers. They assign a block of numbers to each member and they have to use those numbers. One (among many) reasons I don't belong to clubs. > >How do you handle multiple railroads having the same number on a loco?< > Usually this happens in clubs with different members owning the same > engines which have the same numbers. BUT clubs in my area pay no > attention to engine numbers. They assign a block of numbers to each > member and they have to use those numbers. One (among many) reasons I > don't belong to clubs. My club -- Los Angeles Model Railroad Society -- which is in the middle of conversion to DCC is going to use four digit addressing. Each member will be assigned a block using their two digit member number as the first two numbers for their personal equipment. The last two number will usually be the last two numbers of the particular engine. If there is a duplication of the two it is up to the member to selective alternative numbers. Club locos will have the first two numbers of 99 and guests will be assigned numbers with first two numbers between 70 and 90. This will still leave some pretty good gaps available for special situations. Jim Bright >>>How do you handle multiple railroads having the same number on a loco?< >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jim Bright And another thing!!!!!! It's not that hard to CHANGE the loco ID# to "whatever" for the night, and then change it back to what you usually use on your own layout at home. The Loco ID# is NOT a permanent (can't ever be changed) assignment!! Chuck D. then that means a cheat sheet to convert engine numbers to decoder numbers. I know that it is easy to change the number, just tell the loco that it has another number with the base usit. I'm used to the idea of just powering the block and the loco moves. No need for any addressing of the loco as the block addresses it. I'd love to see somebody that has built the electronics so that the loco is addressed as being in block #xx and the block power following the loco. That would mean that any DC loco would be able to run on the layout without any problems and the only time that you have to play the addressing game is to tell the system that loco #xxxx is in the starting block. -- Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds? Bob, CTI appears to have the capability you mention. I am working with it right now to keep track of each train on the layout while in motion and in staging, etc. The capability is called "Beacons". Visit CTI at http://www.cti-electronics.com/ and download the User's Guide for Version 6 to see thorough information on the system (149 pages). You could also download the operating system (TrainBrain) for free and peruse the program and the very thorough Help files if you're interested. The operating software does require a fair amount of programming to do the block & engine addressing. Drop me a note if you wish to pursue further; I might be able to help out. Signature73 de KT0T Bob Schwartz Modeling Waseca, MN in the '50s > then that means a cheat sheet to convert engine numbers to decoder > numbers. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds? That looks a lot more like what a computer controlled layout should be setup as. The fancy electronics is in the layout, not the loco thus there is no fancy electronics in the loco to mess with. What is even nicer for the DCC people is that it also supports DCC operations. -- Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds? > Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds? Because they can't take the train. SignatureFred Lotte flotte@nospam.stratos.net well, with dcc you can toggle the lights on and off. so you can tell pretty quick if you have the units or not. without having to move them. (unless the track is dirty and they aren't getting any power) Jb > That's a personal preference. Directional lighting does have it's > problems [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds? >If the headlamp lights up anything electrical is > pretty much eliminated. If the headlamp fails to light, you start [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > David Starr My experience has been a bit different than what David is stating. I use 1.5V bulbs for constant lighting and use diodes for direction control for more realistic operation. I have been operating on a fairly large DC club layout for a number of years. I have found that about ninety percent of the time when the light comes on and the locomotive wont move you are dealing with something causing a short on the tracks. When the light doesn't come on, and it wont move, most often it is dirty track or dirty wheels or both. Obviously there can be other things wrong but these are the first things I look into when using the light as an aid to finding the problem. On another subject -- putting decoders into your locos when going to DCC. Our club is now converting to DCC and I plan to initially add decoders to only a few of my locos that I use the most often. The others I can still run using address "zero zero". You can control one non DCC engine or consist at a time with that address. As time goes by I can add decoders to other locos but some that I use infrequently will probably never get them. Doing this should work well for someone with a small layout and will reduce the number of decoders you will need to install. J. Bright > On another subject -- putting decoders into your locos when going to > DCC. Our club is now converting to DCC and I plan to initially add > decoders to only a few of my locos that I use the most often. The > others I can still run using address "zero zero". You can control one > non DCC engine or consist at a time with that address. Just wondering. I've tried that on a small DCC test track. And when- ever I put an engine which do not have a decoder on the track, it makes the most annoying loud electrical "humming" sound all the time they are on the track, no matter if they are driving or standing still. Annoying enough that I don't plan on using non-decoder engines if I can avoid it. Is this humming a standard feature of trying to drive a non-decoder engine on DCC track, or is it something with the DCC system I am running that makes this happen ? I've tried with engines from Bachman, Lifelike (P2k) and Athearn. Stein >> On another subject -- putting decoders into your locos when going to >> DCC. Our club is now converting to DCC and I plan to initially add [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I've tried with engines from Bachman, Lifelike (P2k) and Athearn. You're pulling my leg here. Right? -- Ray >>> On another subject -- putting decoders into your locos when going to >>> DCC. Our club is now converting to DCC and I plan to initially add [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You're pulling my leg here. Right? No. I've see a lot of people referring to "just running standard DC engines (without a decoder) on DCC layouts" in this thread (to save a few bucks on not buying decoders). I have a few engines which has not yet had a decoder installed (I have bought the decoders - I just haven't prioritized putting them in before I have gotten enough benchwork and tracks up to make it worthwhile). A DC engine without a decoder on a DCC layout is not something that sounds particularily *good* to me. Since no one had mentioned anything about bad sounds (or even potensial damage to motors) I asked, to find out whether this was something that just happened with *my* DCC system or whether this would be normal for a DC engine on a DCC layout. Smile, Stein Snips: > I've see a lot of people referring to "just running standard > DC engines (without a decoder) on DCC layouts" in this thread (to > save a few bucks on not buying decoders). A lot of people have a bundle of engines, many which they run infrequently. The amount of time and money to decoder all of these can get very high. The main point is that these locos can be run without decoders with the systems that were mentioned. > I have a few engines which has not yet had a decoder installed (I > have bought the decoders - I just haven't prioritized putting them [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Smile, > Stein The humming sound from non-decoder motors on DCC is normal. I've run a number of non-decoder locos on DCC and were it's noticeable I haven't found the sound to be that much of a distraction. Jon Miller's post told how this works electronically and about the potential damage to motors. You can also read about it in Digitrax's FAQ. http://www.digitrax.com/faqbasic.php Scroll to the last few paragraphs on the page. Also there is a ton of information about DCC on the internet so if you are interested you can get really well informed. J. Bright > Snips: >> I've see a lot of people referring to "just running standard [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can get very high. The main point is that these locos can be run > without decoders with the systems that were mentioned. I do understand that. I was just pointing out that running a non- decoder engine on a DCC layout has some drawbacks that hadn't been mentioned. >> I have a few engines which has not yet had a decoder installed (I >> have bought the decoders - I just haven't prioritized putting them [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > number of non-decoder locos on DCC and were it's noticeable I haven't > found the sound to be that much of a distraction. "*where* it is noticable" ? Are you saying that you have run DC locos (without a decoder, or extra diodes to make a rectifier or any other such mods) which do not make a sound when exposed to the square alternating positive/negative waves of of a DCC layout ? What kind of engines ? I have only tried 4 different types of engines - 2 Lifelike P2k types (a S1 and a GP7), 1 Athearn type (2 RS3s) and a Bachmann H15-44 Baby Trainmaster. All of those made a quite distinct and loud hum that it seem would take quite a bit of background noise to drown out. I am not saying that DCC is bad. I have chosen to go that way for the layout I am working on myself, even though it will be a smallish shelf point to point one-operator layout with just a handful of engines (5 or 6), and rarely will have more than two engines moving at the same time, most often probably just one engine moving at any given time. But I did not feel like wiring up a bunch of blocks and toggle switches to be able to isolate verious parts of the layout to leave engines temporarily parked in various odd corners on the layout (or even on the main line) while I took control of another engine to do something else. I am just hinting that maybe some DCC enthusiasts are overselling a little how seamlessly you can mix decoder and non-decoder locos on the same DCC layout. Thanks for the digitrax FAQ link. I'll add it to my link collection. Grin, Stein >> The humming sound from non-decoder motors on DCC is normal. I've run a >> number of non-decoder locos on DCC and were it's noticeable I haven't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > such mods) which do not make a sound when exposed to the square > alternating positive/negative waves of of a DCC layout ? Stein, I think you may have misunderstood what I said. I did hear the engines humming but it wasn't so loud that it bothered me. Once they were running you could hardly hear the hum at all. I think if you were standing next to a non moving engine and were dwelling on the humming sound you could well decide it was annoying. > What kind of engines ? I have only tried 4 different types of engines - > 2 Lifelike P2k types (a S1 and a GP7), 1 Athearn type (2 RS3s) and a > Bachmann H15-44 Baby Trainmaster. It was on a friends DCC layout -- I don't remember exactly what all the brands were. I believe that one was a small Bachmann steamer and there were a couple brass diesels that were probably Challengers. Also there were a couple Genesis F units plus some others that I cant recall. > I am just hinting that maybe some DCC enthusiasts are overselling a > little how seamlessly you can mix decoder and non-decoder locos on the > same DCC layout. I've seen a non-decoder engine operate very nicely mixed in with those with decoders. The thing is that this is a way to operate a non-decoder engine as opposed to not being able to run it at all. Jim >No. I've see a lot of people referring to "just running standard >DC engines (without a decoder) on DCC layouts" in this thread (to >save a few bucks on not buying decoders). I've seen warnings against doing that. The track voltages are incompatible with DC motors. -- Ray > Just wondering. I've tried that on a small DCC test track. And when- > ever I put an engine which do not have a decoder on the track, it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > engine on DCC track, or is it something with the DCC system I am > running that makes this happen ? That's how it sounds when trying to run a DC motor on an square-wave alternating voltage (which the DCC voltage is, see http://www.nmra.org/standards/DCC/standards_rps/S-91-2004-07.pdf). Beware as it may harm the motor, it gets quite hot. SignatureBest regards Erik Olsen http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/ The hum is the DCC wave form, it's correctly called AC. It's square wave and some system will do what is called zero stretching which makes the signal either more positive or negative. This causes a DC motor to run. The hum is caused by the armature switching back and forth between the positive and negative parts of the waveform at the speed of the signal. >Beware as it may harm the motor, it gets quite hot< Regular motors are not harmed but a coreless armature motor can easily be destroyed and rather quickly. As they have no iron in the armature they have no way to dissipate the heat and burn up. >> On another subject -- putting decoders into your locos when going to >> DCC. Our club is now converting to DCC and I plan to initially add [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Stein >> Beware as it may harm the motor, it gets quite hot< > Regular motors are not harmed That's not true. A friend of mine have had a conventional motor (Atlas N gauge) burn out that way. I test ran my new Kato F7 ABBA set on his DCC layout, and boy, they got hot. No sir, I won't run any DC locomotives on a DCC layout anymore. SignatureBest regards Erik Olsen http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/ >>> Regular motors are not harmed That's not true.<< Sorry I tend to think in terms of HO. You are correct in that a N scale motor is very small and may not have enough iron in it to dissipate the heat fast enough. >>>> Regular motors are not harmed > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > motor is very small and may not have enough iron in it to dissipate the heat > fast enough. I have never had ay trouble with Atlas, LL, Kato. David <snip> > Question. Why use the decoder to operate the headlamp? Just to regulate > the 24 V DCC track power down enough to run a 12 volt lamp? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > David Starr Because that's the way the railroads do it. If you MU units together then only the headlights at the ends of the consist light up. headlights between units remain off even when changing direction. Plus can put a decoder in passenger cars or caboose and control them. Bright at stations, dim on the road, off on storage tracks. And ditch lights only come on when out on the road. Lights stay on even when loco not moving... >Because that's the way the railroads do it< You need to think outside the box. The box being time. The era and railroad modeled will determine what the headlight is doing, on - off--etc. >>Because that's the way the railroads do it > > You need to think outside the box. The box being time. The era and > railroad modeled will determine what the headlight is doing, on - > off--etc. What era or railroads lit up the headlights of middle units in MU lashups? I would have guessed the railroads would have *never* bothered requiring the headlights on the middle units to be lit, regardless of era. My own layout is DCC and choose it for its flexibility and the possibility of using a computer in the future to control the layout. Our new club exhibition layout is going to be DC operated as I am doing the wiring I am making sure that it is DCC compatible. I am trying to get my head around block working with 2 controllers and I can see some real problems in managing the system to get trains running where you want them. The first stage of the layout is Tumut Railway Station on 3 tables and it needs 6 blocks and 5 isolation switches so that we can run 2 trains on a simple layout. As I am new to modeling and started with DCC if you are building a new layout I can see that using DC is just a waste of time to set it up and manage, unless you come from the old way and are making excuses on why not to change over. Peter SignaturePeter Prewett, Tumut, New South Wales Well, it's mainly because my layout's still on the drawing board at the moment. Having said that, I do have DCC conversion in mind for a future date, once the system functions as well as it can on DC. That way any teething troubles with the trackwork, etc. can be worked out before the investment in an expensive DCC system. I'm also buying only DCC-compatible locos. As I'm modelling in N scale, and only have a very small fleet, the initial outlay shouldn't be too expensive. But another sticking point is that the only retailers in my local area (In Australia) stock the Bachmann system. But when I do go to DCC, I'd probably use the Atlas system. > For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/ > "I started out with nothing and I still have most of it." |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.