Anybody tried DCC and went back to DC?



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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg.P. wrote:

So are you guys ever going to determine if Certs is a candy mint or if Certs is a breath mint?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article snipped-for-privacy@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, video guy - www.locoworks.com at snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote on 8/24/06 3:13 PM:

Certs is a birth control pill. The woman holds it between her knees.
--
Ed Oates
http://homepage.mac.com/edoates
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Never heard of "Certs".
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That explains it all <VBG>!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm completely unaware of any DCC product called "Certs".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bud Lite is like having sex in a canoe.
-- Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I prefer proper beer, not that crap yank gnats piss.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Carlsberg, Guinness and other off shore beers brewed in North America are "brewed to Canadian/American tastes". Which means they do not taste the same nor do the have the same alcohol content as they do in their home country but are brewed to taste like every other popular Canadian/American beer.
This was admitted to by the breweries due the high number of tourists who come back from overseas and ask why the beers they drink over in Europe as say Guinness or Carlsberg tastes completely different from the beer they drink at home.
-- Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article snipped-for-privacy@grapevine.islandnet.com, Roger T. at snipped-for-privacy@highspeedplus.com wrote on 8/25/06 5:34 PM:

Alcohol content is regulated by various states, and if they want to call it "Beer" instead of "Stout Malt Liquor," they have to stay in the "beer" range.
The formulations for taste are based on market research: these are massive corporations and want to sell a lot of beer. So they brew it to taste like other big selling brews. It is possible to get reasonable (though not necessarily European tasting) beers here in the US: Sam Adams and Henry Weinhard, Dos X (especially the dark) for mass market stuff; Anchor Steam and similar here in the SF bay area. You do need to look around, but decent beer is available. Just don't expect it from Budweiser, Miller, or Coors.
--
Ed Oates
http://homepage.mac.com/edoates
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote on 8/25/06 5:34 PM:

It doesn't have to taste like European beers, it just needs to taste like beer! The alcoholic content and other regulations are your problems, not an excuse.
;-)
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We have two 'big' (it's relative) beer producers here in NZ. Over the last 20 odd years, as the last of the traditional makers got sucked up the boutique makers have appeared, marketting through the few independent outlets in their locales. The ones that were sufficiently successful have in their turn been soaked up, but the two biggies (relative to NZ) have created their own "boutique" brands and brews. They have tried making brews for the US market (eg Steinlager) but almost no-one here drinks those.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No it's not that bad, in fact it has almost no flavour, no alcohol content or taste. Quite why anyone would actually want to drink it is a mystery to me. But that's my personal opinion. The Carlsberg Pilsner tastes much more like beer than does Bud Lite. I tried that once as well.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LOL.
wrote on 8/25/06 10:12 AM:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg.P. wrote:
> > >>>> Greg, do you really have a grasp on what North American >>>> prototypical operation is all about? From your comments, I >>>> think not. >>> >>> I think I have a reasonable grasp of the subject, after all I've >>> read most that's been written about the subject over the last 60 >>> years. >> >> It doesn't sound like you do. > > 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.
Bullshit. You *STILL* can't grasp the fundaments of North American operation. You've demonstrated that over and over again. I suspect your understanding of German operations isn't that flash, either.
>>> You're saying that running one train is not playing driver but >>> running multiple trains is??? >>> >>> I would consider it "playing signalman". >> >> Perhaps, but we run our trains as there is, in many cases, no such >> thing as a "signalman". If we do have signalling systems, then it >> CTC and it's ilk and that's controlled by a dispatcher who >> (usually) controls 120 plus miles of track. Even without >> signalling, he'll still control 120 plus miles of track. > > Yeah yeah, you call your "signalman" a "dispatcher". His system uses > different means of keeping trains apart.
You're displaying your ignorance again. A dispatcher and a signalman are two entirely separate and unrelated roles.
> 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.
Really? Why not? How is it then that prototype modellers around the world use DCC to replicate a variety of safeworking/rules/operating systems? Could it be they know more than you?
>>>> My crews, and the crews on other layouts I have operated on, >>>> move freight and passengers using car-cards and waybills. The >>>> CC&WBs give routings and it's up to the crews, as in real life, >>>> to forward those cars in the most expeditious manner using the >>>> trains available. Some trains operate to a time-table, usually >>>> just the passengers, but almost all the freight is run as >>>> extras. >>> >>> Sure, that's a reasonable way to play, assuming that's what your >>> prototype did or does. >> >> It does. As do all North American railways other than transit >> systems. > > Without intending to be rude, I have to say you don't know much about > US railway operation overall.
I'll happily be rude - you're the one who "don't know much about US railway operation overall". What part of Roger's statement do you dispute? Be prepared to back up your reply with facts...
> 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.
So? Get some reading glasses!
> 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.
You poor blind bastard - your inability to read little numbers from further away from 18" is a limtation of your eyesight, not DCC!
> 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.
Just how thick are you? That's *why* Roger has provision for multiple operators, uses prototypical paperwork, crosses and interchanges trains - he's replicating the actions of a railroad system!
>>>> We don't have central control panels where the operator remains >>>> all the time, we follow our trains and line the switches as >>>> required, right at the switch, just like the prototype. >>> >>> Sounds like you don't know your railroad's operating system! >> >> Come on, don't be stupid. > > A basic principle of safe train operation is that the driver doesn't > operate the route setting, other than in _very_ specific > circumstances.
Idiot. In all sorts of circumstances, on railroads all over the world, on main lines and branches, train crew set routes. They've done so since the dawn of railways. You're displaying your ignorance *yet* again.
> 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.
Sigh. You're displaying your ignorance *yet* again.
> 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
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Only a complete and utter drongo would believe that...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
fGreg.P. wrote:
>> How is it then that prototype modellers around the world use DCC to >> replicate a variety of safeworking/rules/operating systems? Could >> it be they know more than you? >> > Perhaps, or perhaps they are playing trains like you are ie, not in > the manner used by the majority of the World's railways.
Whether I operate according to what you mistakenly believe is "the manner used by the majority of the World's railways" or not, the fact is that I operate in exactly the manner of my chosen prototype, based on personal experience of the operating rules and close and intensive study, neither of which you have done. You've admitted yourself that you know little of North American operations - why then do you insist on characterising such operations as slotcars, or playing trains?
>>>>>> We don't have central control panels where the operator >>>>>> remains all the time, we follow our trains and line the >>>>>> switches as required, right at the switch, just like the >>>>>> prototype. >>>>> >>>>> Sounds like you don't know your railroad's operating system! >>>> >>>> Come on, don't be stupid. >>>> >>> A basic principle of safe train operation is that the driver >>> doesn't operate the route setting, other than in _very_ specific >>> circumstances. >> >> Idiot. In all sorts of circumstances, on railroads all over the >> world, on main lines and branches, train crew set routes. They've >> done so since the dawn of railways. You're displaying your >> ignorance *yet* again. > > 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.
Of course we do, why on earth would you imagine otherwise? We have the rules, We have orders/circulars/special train notices, we have the timetable and any appendices thereof, we can look at the train locator - we have more than enough information.
There is whole world of railways where yards and interlockings are operated by train crew, because they are otherwise unattended. There is no Fahrdienstleiter or Weichenwrter to do the job for us. Hence the responsibility for route setting falls to the train crew, 'cause there ain't nobody else there to do the job.
> So you can point me to information showing where _drivers_ make > decisions about route setting in multi-train situations?
Any system where there are unattended loops or interlockings. Common in the UK, Australia and the US.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's exactly what I do. Why would you doubt that?
You've admitted yourself that you

I characterize your mode of operations as 'playing slotcars' because, as you've described them they are little more than that. Believe me, your prototype puts in more safeguards than just time spaced departures to separate trains.

Only from what I've been told here that I should believe.
We have the

So NOW you're telling me that you don't separate trains _only_ by timed departures.

Certainly, but the train crew don't make those decisions that relate to potential conflicts between trains. Permission to change turnouts etc are oked by someone who has an overview and a measure of control of the section of railway. The train crew act as standins for that controller when they take such action.
There is

Hopefully they only make such actions as they are allowed, by the rules and the person overviewing them. They do not take responsibility for route setting, they effect the route setting. Responsibilty rests with the controller/overseer.

They follow a set of rules. The routes are prescribed in those rules or in specific orders. Decisions made by traincrew will relate only to their charges' immediate requirements and existing rules will tell them how routes must be left.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Discussing anything with Greg is impossible.
No matter what one writes, he puts his twist onto it.
Greg is the all knowing God of model railroading.
He claims to know all yet knows nothing, as his replies indicate.
As will all Gods, there's only one way to treat them.
PLONK!
-- Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.