Anybody tried DCC and went back to DC?

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:15:45 -0700, "Greg.P." wrote:

Mark is not the one posting bullshit, you are. Not only that, but everyone reading this group has become keenly aware of that.

That's because the "other possibilities"- namely direct current- controlling the tracks under the trains instead of the actual trains- has reached its limit of practical development. One can do many things with DC to mimic some of the features of DCC, but at great cost in time, money and engineering input. There is no point in doing that when one can get all that DC offers and more right out of the box with a top-shelf DCC system. Reading the tripe you write one gets the idea that you believe that your old manual typewriter can do everything a modern, computerized word processing program can do. That is rubbish, and so are your anti-DCC rantings. Listening to you prattle about prototypical working is a joke. Either you do not have a clue, or you are pretending not to have one. In either case, you are coming across like an absolutely clueless individual. There are several of us subscribing to this group who are, or have been, professional railroaders, myself among them. We have told you that you don't know what you are talking about, and you respond that, yes you do, it is us that are incorrect and clueless. When I read your post stating that; while you do not actually have any real working on the railroad experience, you have read a lot about it and know several people who do, or who have worked on the railroad, I almost sprayed a mouthful of Coca-Cola out onto the keyboard and video screen. Did you mean that as a joke, or were you actually serious?

Do you think that those of us who earn a living working on the railroad live in a vacuum? Do you think we can spend decades working as groundsmen, engine drivers, signalmen, trainmasters, yardmasters, leading engine drivers, dispatchers and so on, and not know all about how a real railway operates? Do you think that those of the aforementioned group who are interested enough to be model railroaders have not accrued additional railway knowledge through reading, study, and observation to go along with their own first-hand experience? Do you think that I am incapable of operating my model railway with DCC in exactly the same fashion that my chosen prototype did? If you do, then you are an arrogant ass to be sure.

Your intransigence and your abyssal lack of knowledge about railway operation is amusing. Almost as amusing as your pathetic attempts to discredit DCC and all those who use it. You said that I should killfile you. Ah, but I won't do that, because you amuse me and I am one of the few who genuinely irritate you. You are sorely lacking in knowledge about railway operations in the real world, and even more sorely lacking in knowledge regarding prototypical operation of model railways. You have, so far, got yourself PLONKED by two subscribers to this group by virtue of your ignorant rantings. I will not be number three. I rather enjoy seeing you get your ass roasted by the likes of Roger and Mark. I am sorry that Roger killfiled you as it was amusing to read him rake you over the coals. I shall miss that. If you knew what you were talking about it would be different, but you pontificate from a point of utter ignorance, so you deserve to get raked over the coals.

Regards, Obnoxious Pratt

Reply to
Obnoxious Pratt
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
Jon Miller

Thank you all for turning this thread into a major pissin' contest. It is so good to see that everybody is so eager to argue about pretty much anything. Nothing is better than a healthy remote, non-real-time argument

Seeing how this goes on just about modeling choices no wonder we can't have any world peace (sorry, I needed to throw this one in).

Carry on ....

Peteski

Reply to
Peter W.

Bullshit! What a crock of rubbish!

Regards, Obnoxious Pratt

Reply to
Obnoxious Pratt

"Greg.P." wrote in news:ecl64p$6pe$ snipped-for-privacy@lust.ihug.co.nz:

I suspect that what you are getting irrate replies because you make rather sweeping claims with little or nothing to back up your claims.

By all means - you don't like DCC. Fine. No problem. You think the extra of going DCC is not matched by enough extra capability to offset the cost - to you. Again fine. No problem.

Where you go off the tracks is when you start making claims like (paraphrased) : "only way of modelling the way real life railroads assign time slots to trains on a busy line is to cut the model RR tracks into separate electrical blocks". Just because one uses the word "block" both in the sentence "separate electical district on a model RR" and "part of a RR line between two signals in real life", it does not follow that the *only* way to model prototypical practices is to wire each section of rail as a separate

*electrical* blocks.

Which is exactly the same as DCC. What role you want to play is not dependent on how you decide which trains will move and how fast. You can play train driver just as well with a DC layout as a DCC layout. You turn a knob on your controller to adjust speed and possibly direction.

Only difference in principle is how you select which train or trains your controller controls.

Grin, Stein

Reply to
Stein R

Reply to
Greg.P.

Are you suggesting I should give up my model railway locomotives in favour of electronics components??? Why?

I am, and have been for the last 35 years, been building up a roster of locomotives to enable me to run almost anything that ran on my prototype railway 1918-32. Why would I want to reduce that roster in favour of a control system that can't achieve all that my present one does?

You aren't making any sense.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg.P.

I'll admit I don't have a full understanding of what you do, but I'm reasonably cognisant of what I'm doing with model railways, and of a good number of prototype railways.

Certainly, but you apparently are playing one specific railway role, whereas I'm building a system where I can pick from a wide variety of prototypical roles at any time as the spirit takes me.

Yeah yeah, you call your "signalman" a "dispatcher". His system uses different means of keeping trains apart. Where in the Newsgroups heading does it say that this group is purely about one railway, in this instant in time in the USa?

Sure, DCC may well suit your concept of railway control for a specific railway today, but it doesn't particularly suit other means of railway operation.

Without intending to be rude, I have to say you don't know much about US railway operation overall.

Ok, so how do your trains run, or do you operate periods of time when trains aren't running?

I gather you're assuming I run trains in mindless roundy-go-roundy fashion. Why? Is that all you can conceptualize? As for automation, how else could I replicate numerous train movements at any given instant?

1- automation of the majority of train movements? 2- have lots of operators? 3- don't replicate the movements? 4- have lots of independent roundy-go-roundy tracks?

I'll be very interested to hear your alternative suggestions, as I've already discarded the last #3 and #4 as being beneath consideration and made allowance for #2 as an occassional option.

You, on the other hand seem only to be able to conceptualize #2 and #4, neither of which would create prototypical operation.

I suggest you look at the main lines out of New York as just one example of intensively utilized, blocked and signalled US main line operation.

-

Sure, you just happen to model a railway that has big, easily read numbers printed on the sides of your locos. Not all railways had such big numbers on their locos. I happen to model a railway that had little numbers on the sides and ends of it's locos and can't read them from more than about 18" away. There are options available to me, like modelling a different railway, buying high powered binoculars, painting big numbers on pieces of cardboard and sticking them on the cab roofs etc, but that sounds to me like a limitation of DCC. (check the subject line)

You've already told me (as does all the DCC blurb) that you drive (a) train around your roundy-go-round scale model railway representation. Operating a model railway is about replicating the actions of a system, not a single train.

So you're not modelling the operation of a real railway? or are you saying I shouldn't?

A basic principle of safe train operation is that the driver doesn't operate the route setting, other than in _very_ specific circumstances.

Sure, some railways make much/most of their operation to match those very specific circumstances, but they preclude almost all operation that has more than two locomotives or trains in restricted space. That's a very limited form of railway operation.

So the prototype still has them but you avoid modelling them. Why? Laziness? Inability? Lack of knowledge?

So why don't you model the prototype?

Possibly, but it's no more compulsary than chosing the wrong DCC address.

If you check my web-site you'll see I have offered and sold car cards etc for the last 10 years or so. I do know what I'm talking about.

I know more about prototype operation than you'd think, from

So how often did you get out of the cab and set mainline points in the UK?

Sure, I've never been a railway employee, but I've been a keen observer for

55 years. I have friends who are/have been signal engineers, locomotive engineers (the real sort) drivers, shunters etc. Perhaps I have a wider range of knowledge than you, if not your depth of knowledge of a very limited range of tasks.

But this discussion is about trying DCC and rejecting it. I tried and rejected it because of it's limitations for my specific needs of operation.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg.P.

Thanks Stein. However I would direct your attention to the subject line, which is what I have been attempting to comment on. DCC fell short of my requirements, but apparently I'm not allowed to mention the shortcomings of the religion of DCC or the wroth of it's zealots is brought to bear on me.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg.P.

It's a very large figure that would need to come out of my wallet. Figure 100 locos at circa $60- each, plus a control system and hand-helds; we've reached $7000- without any change. Fitting the decoders would be a year's work, setting the CVs another year ... Five years after starting, technology would have moved so far that I would be compelled to replace all the decoders. Meanwhile, I would have a control system that wouldn't do what I need of it.

Reply to
Greg.P.

Never heard of "Certs".

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg.P.

Exactly what has North American operation got to do with anything?

I suspect your

Yeah yeah, would you like a list of all the things I suspect you of?

Sheesh! You just explained to me that the task done by a European/ British/New Zealand is done in the US by a "dispatcher". I know their tasks aren't precisely the same, but I went along with you.

You aren't following my points of discussion but seem intent on setting "dispatcher" type traps and then lambasting me for stepping into them. I've explained numerous times where the limitations of DCC don't match my requirements. Would you like me to spell them out to you again?

How is it then that prototype modellers around the

Perhaps, or perhaps they are playing trains like you are ie, not in the manner used by the majority of the World's railways.

I dispute that DCC is a purely US model train operating system, or that this discussion (see subject line) is purely about US operation.

You just don't get it, do you. Why, why would I want to go to the hastle of specifically identifying every individual locomotive that passes through my operating section of track? On my prototype and model the _train_ is identified. It's normal block operating protocol. The identity of the loco or locos is basically irrelevant.

Very true - I suffer from 20/20 vision. Whatever, I can't guarentee to read the numbers correctly and even if I could I shouldn't have to. That would be DCC forcing me into a mode of operation contrary to prototype operation.

Not particularly. And you?

That's *why* Roger has provision for multiple

So using DCC forces Roger into having multiple operators. Obviously without multiple operators he can't operate his railway prototypically. That's a limitation of DCC I wasn't prepared to accept. Just how thick are you?

No they don't. They become manual workers who change routes as prescribed by 'dispatchers'. In no sane operating system would drivers make the decisions as to route settings because they don't have access to the information to make those decisions.

So you can point me to information showing where _drivers_ make decisions about route setting in multi-train situations?

And yet you believe it - ok.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg.P.

I'd be very interested to know how you reach that conclusion!

who deliberately distorts and

You can quote facts that I have distorted?

and then post futher

I'm sure you can back your accusations, otherwise you have just shown yourself to be a foul mouthed liar.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg.P.

When I started in DCC decoders were costing me around $60- each.

What are the decoders you

Just how wet behind the ears are you? Look at the advances in decoder technology:

- originally they were 14 speed step, set minimum and maximum speed plus lights on/off. 16 addresses.

- accelleration and deacceleration settings.

- 80 addresses.

- ditto plus function output.

- 28 step.

- 4 function.

- speed mapping.

- extra lighting functions.

- extra addresses

- 128 speed step.

- etc.

- sound.

- multiple loco control.

-

These have been individual improvements, many of which would have caused me to upgrade. I can assure you that 16 address, 14 speed step, max/min speed and lights on/off wouldn't be acceptable to me today.

Yeah yeah, you buy cheap plastic locos with lots of empty space inside - I don't.

Try looking on the DCC newsgroups - they are filled with people asking about CVs, dead decoders and the like.

I can't guarentee to be able to read the loco number - half my layout is hidden staging yards. I could of course have designed my layout differently to accomodate DCC, but that would be DCC driving the design of my layout, if you can see the stupidity of that.

What I can't understand is what you see of my postings as lies, and why you don't declare DCC a religion and take the potential tax breaks that that would offer.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg.P.

We're discussing a hobby or passtime that has almost no relevance in the big wide world - or did I miss the annual model railway Oscar prize night? ;-)

So why exactly are you continuing to attack me for stating that I am one of those who fit the subject line? The original poster asked a question and I responded. Quite simply, DCC has operating limitations. If you never come up against them then that's nice, but don't rubbish people who do.

Sigh!

- one is forced to identify individual locos to be able to operate them.

- all one's loco roster needs conversion at once for DCC to be used.

- one needs to drive every locomotive.

- cost.

Hmmm:

- constant lighting was the biggy when I started into electronics. (1960s-70s) It's easily achieved in a number of well defined ways.

- switchable constant lighting. Add-on to the above.

- sound - see Puget Sound system. (c 1970)

- speed setting/mapping. Either onboard or within controller.

A "decoder" within an analogue controlled loco is quite practical, capable of speed mapping and light/function switching. There's something like it reviewed in one of the US mags very recently.

You making an unsubstanciated comment doesn't amount to evidence. Yes, there are situations where a train may move forward into an occupied block in Germany, but they are very specific circumstances.

About as frequently as you need reminding that the World is not the USa.

I tend to assimilate information about people I like or agree with or who show themselves worth of respect.

a: where in "rec.models.railroad" does it say "USA"? b: where does it say DCC only relates to the USA?

North American rules and procedures are

Wow, let's not confuse people with alternatives!

Whether

Sorry, but there are US railroads that use or have used block control. There are US modellers who use hidden staging yards. There were US railroads that didn't paint 3 foot high reporting numbers on their locos.

Life is odd.

Reply to
Greg.P.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:30:31 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and "Greg.P." instead replied:

Yeah.

Let the Kiwis police the world and keep those terrorists in line.

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

Maybe he went a little overboard on the time needed but for someone else that has on that order a number of locos (when you can claim to have much of the railroad you're modelling types you generally have a lot of locos, especially when you can claim several of one class AND also be able to do that iwth diesels!) then the cost of adding decoders is a major issure. Those of you that are running 5-10 locos don't see the expense involved. I'd rather walk into a club layout in some strange town and not be able to run my locos because of them being DCC than to try and convert a DCC loco to DC for an operating session on a DC layout. BTW, what do the really large layouts use? DC or DCC? Also, what happens to a layout when a good 100 locos are all running at a time? As far as sound is concerned, it is easy to do sound on a DC layout. It is, however, a bit expensive if you buy the commercial equipment as there aren't that many sold and thus the price is high. I've heard excellent sound from locos 30 years ago with the PFM sound system and it is a simple system ot implement - just mix the sound with the track power through a transformer and pick it up in the loco with a cap to drive the speaker.

-- Yeppie, Bush is such an idiot that He usually outwits everybody else. How dumb!

Reply to
Bob May

Wait until you taste what Guiness has turned into here in the states - just another pisswater.

-- Yeppie, Bush is such an idiot that He usually outwits everybody else. How dumb!

Reply to
Bob May

"Greg.P." wrote in news:ecnps1$u78$ snipped-for-privacy@lust.ihug.co.nz:

That would seem to be a reasonably rational decission given what you apparently want to be the main focus of your model - a lot of trains moving essensially *on autopilot* at the same time, to create a heavy traffic situation.

Which is not to say that the same local freight job could not *also* be modelled equally well by using DCC to stop the local freight at a switch, witch your controller to pick up a train that need to pass on the mainline and drive the other train past (and into staging) before you again pick up your local freight and continue down the line to the next industry.

Essensially, in the situation of taking a local out to pick up or put out freight cars at local industries, the only difference is the

*viewpoint* of the person driving that local.

Whether he in principle represents a god-like creature who hovers in the sky above the area and sees the whole area and all trains in the area moving at the same time as he runs his one train, or whether he represents a train driver who concentrates on his own train and his closest environs.

I agree that the god-perspective must look cool when a lot of things are happening at the same time, and that it takes a heck of a lot of skill to make it come off well - so things actually can run on auto- pilot, and yet be controlled and changed when needed.

I just do not agree that having lots of trains operating on auto-pilot at the same time is the *only* sensible way to model a given prototype. Especially when the prototype you are modelling did not have ATC.

Grin, Stein

Reply to
Stein R

Bud Lite is like having sex in a canoe.

-- Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

formatting link

Reply to
Roger T.

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.