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.
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.
You have to have a pretty old, or strange, decoder that won't run on DC.
What is a really large layout? The club I belong to has a 15'x100' layout. With DC we are limited to 6 cabs. With DCC we have run 8 trains on the main (it's a pretty busy dispatcher at that point) and some switching in the three primary yards. So we probably don't qualify as a really large layout?
Dunno! Depends on what features the locos have, if they are all BLI sound equipped you need lots of power districts (boosters). We just upgraded to the 5 AMP boosters because we found that two 4 engine (all BLI w/sound) trains (with all the lighted and sound cars) drew too much power for the old
You are not one to speak of uninformed, as little as you know. I don't believe you even have a complete knowledge of how your prototype of choice operates. I think you just make it up as it suits you. You are clearly uninformed on railway workings around the rest of the world. It remains to be determined by someone better qualified than you whether I am ignorant or not. Obnoxious? Yes. That is deliberate, but ignorant? Hardly.
Ok, I'll start all over again! The subject line defines the question. An implied question is " why did you give up on DCC?"
I tried to answer those two questions in an honest manner.
In response I've been told that:
- I'm wrong, (very odd as I was refering to my personal experiences)
- that I don't know anything about US railroad operations (again odd as I don't model US railroad operations)
- that I'm a liar. (wierd, unless some of you reside in my mind).
I'm quite happy to discuss DCC vs DC but I'm getting pissed off at having my integrity and knowledge questioned. Roger T for example just sent me a long e-mail and finished it by telling me he has blanked me - fine, but why send a discussive email if he doesn't want a response?
Both DC and DCC have limitations, different limitations. DC didn't do what I want so I investigated DCC. It cost vastly more and didn't do what I wanted on one of my three layouts so I rejected it.
As to US/North American operation, this has existed for circa 180 years now and has _never_ had one overall operating system. Some parts of the system operate block systems just like those of Europe, some used the Tyler token system as was used here in New Zealand c1890-1970 etc etc.
I suspect I'm getting irate replies because I attempted to give a factual reply to the original question and that the respondees aren't smart enough to comprehend that the reply related to my experiences but instead see them as an attack on their religion.
Thank you!
I was talking about my modelling/prototype. Around the 1870s those railways that ran relatively intensive services realized that "time slots" didn't keep trains safely separated and so instituted other means of separating them.
The whole point of signals is to keep trains separated. Certainly it isn't the only way, but if you're going to have signals and train detection and independent *electrical* ;-) blocks then ...why bother doing it some other way.
DCC (and DC) would seem irrelevant to that particular point.
What role you want to play is not
True.
Very true. However I (probably) wrote the above quotes in relation to whether or not automatic loco driving was relevant to operation. I use automatic loco control in an attempt to achieve multiple train movements on my layout. (that's trains moving from a hidden staging yard, through a section of visible signal blocked main line to my main station) My prototype was a heavily trafficked main line section where the train movement capacity was always at it's limit, so one operator/one train would be a physical impracticability. There wouldn't be space for that number of operators to stand in front of the layout, and as each train appears once (or twice) in an operating session and then returns to the staging yard. Amongst this organised mahem I can take a task such as running the local goods, picking up and setting down wagons at each industry while threading through the mix of suburban commuter trains, medium and long distance passenger and goods trains. DCC didn't add enough advantages to offset the inherent disadvantages, _in my situation_.
It also allows me to take over any railway function I feel I would like to take on. It's NOT 100% automatic.
My philosophy is and has been for the last 20 odd years to move the complication of electrical operation to hard wiring and with this/these present layouts to move the complication from hard wiring to software.
A simple example would be spur and route traction current. I just use the electrical switching of turnouts to link power to the track beyond. Another example is basic route control; if a siding could only be accessed via two turnouts in series then throwing the final turnout causes the preceding turnouts to be thrown. Add in signals - a turnout can't be thrown when it clashes with an already set route. (defined by 'clear' signals) A signal can't be cleared until there is a route set. It's basic interlocking as used on my chosen prototype. Previously I hard wired it all, with additional switches stacked on each point motor. On the present layout I replaced the additional switches and hard wiring with software - much less hastle and easily altered.
I object to the time wasted in the past on building control panel hardware which has almost always been a step behind layout alterations.
I wouldn't even try to persuade you to do it otherwise (electrically). I personally would do it with DC, but for a club layout you would become dependent on me being there to fix any faults or else spend a lot of time on scenery. =8^)
Sure, but then you will come up against the limitations of DCC at some point. or not. If you do then you're dependent on the DCC producers having a technological work-around.
For me, with much of my layout in hidden staging yards, electrical block operation was the only practical way. Yes, there are _now_ technological work-arounds, but there weren't when I started the layout and they are expensive today in the numbers I would require. The second problem was the actual loco recognition, and in spite of the insults thrown at me by various people on this ng in regards to it, it was a very real stumbling point.
Go back to the subject line and then think! We were asked to comment on our individual experiences of DCC. I've had DCC/Lenz since before it was DCC and I still have it. I've attempted to relate the shortfalls I found with DCC _in my modelling_. Mark has attempted to show me that I'm wrong by insisting on _US operating procedures_ Of course we can't agree because Mark is not on subject. Of course I'm making statements that don't fit Mark's time and location limited view of operation because that's not the subject under discussion. If Mark wants to discuss DCC in relation to his limited time and location then he should start a new subject.
No it hasn't.
One can do many things with DC to mimic some of the features
It's simple enough - add a decoder programed to react to DCC commands other than speed and direction control. It's a very simple concept.
There is no point in
There most definitely is a point when ones layout is modelling a prototype block system.
Reading the tripe you write one gets the idea that you believe
Sure, but you're overlooking the fact that a modern, computerized word processing program can do _most_ of what an old manual typewriter can do. It still can't print on paper.
I'm sure the subtleties of that will be lost on you, but never mind.
and so are your anti-DCC rantings.
Go back to the subject line - I'm talking about the limitations of DCC in my situation, not about present day limited, location limited, operating practices.
In either case, you are coming across
I'll repeat that. You apparently don't have a clue beyond your personal experience of a single prototype of the recent past.
When I read your post stating
Are you suggesting that the only way to obtain knowledge is to actually do the job???
99% of the worls's population is going to be horribly disapointed!!! Close the schools - close the universities - close the polytechs - close the apprentice schemes! If the only way to learn is to do the job then the rails, the trains, the systems would not exist in the first place. I certainly couldn't model German railways of 1932 because they don't exist.
Do you think there's only one possible way to operate a railway???
Why, if you are aware enough to have ever thought, do you think there are different ways to build locomotives, different ways to build passenger carriages, different ways to build wagons, different track gauges etc etc etc ... Is everyone else but the US wrong? Are those in the USa who try different ways wrong? Do you think that those of the USa who try different methods are wrong???
So why are you telling me that I am wrong in attempting to operate my model railway in the same fashion as my prototype did?
I didn't start this with the intent of telling anyone they are wrong (beyond those claiming DCC is the ultimate control system) I've responded to those attacking my experiences with DCC and they seem determined to take my responses out of context.
You're suggesting that the majority of the world's railways don't operate on the block system???
I AM NOT trying to discredit DCC nor the people who use it. I am simply pointing out that it does have limitations, as any system must imnherently have limitations. Those limitations will only show up at an advanced stage in the hobby but people tend to take up DCC at an early stage of the hobby and therefore won't become aware of those limitations until it is too late to consider change.
You said that I should killfile you. Ah, but I won't do that, because you amuse
Only in your limited mind.
You have, so far, got
Mark is insisting on changing the subject to his own limited area of knowledge - of course we shall never agree on anything because we're arguing different subjects.
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.
Absolutely. Most of my ladder yard tracks are divided at least into two sections, as each end of the ladder can be on a separate controller. That requires switches to switch off/on sections of track. The halves are also switched by their relevant turnouts. Generally the required toggle switching is done by the computer/turnouts and only special circumstances require manual electrical switching.
Of course, depending on one's definition of "block". A single line unsignaled track between two stations counts as a 'block'.
Again it depends on ones terminology. A line between two train order stations is a 'block'( or section in the US?) While various people here contend that multiple trains are sent into that 'block' (or section) with only a written order and a specific time interval to separate them I'm uninclined to believe them as that system was dropped elsewhere at about the time the telegraph came into use due to the number of train colissions that took place under that system of operation.
I do have Trix EMS, which uses HF signals imposed on DC to operate a shunter in conjunction with analogue trains for my industrial branch. It does the basics of what DCC does, allow independent control of two locos in the same block. It's barely worth the trouble.
Sure, I could ignore all other train movements and just run one train - a major part of the interplay operation would be missing.
It's the only practical way to model lots of trains moving with one or a limited number of operators available.!
They did have A.T.Braking for signals in 1932. It had first appeared operationally on the GWR in Britain in (from memory) 1912.
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.
"Greg.P." wrote in news:ecqehj$rsv$ snipped-for-privacy@lust.ihug.co.nz:
Which is perfectly fine. Some others prefer to go the other way in their modelling - abstracting away some of the "other traffic" and instead focusing on hands on operation of one (or a few) trains per operator.
Either way is a perfectly legitimate way to model. Either way can be called "operations".
If that is what you *want* to model - trainspotting at a busy spot. I like trainspotting - but I don't want to try to model it in H0 scale. For me the cost of such a scheme would be far higher then the benefit.
If I want to do virtual trainspotting (ie at some age or some spot not easily accessible to me in real life), I probably would put a DVD or video in the player and plop down in the comfy chair :-)
If what you want to focus on in your model is e.g. picking up and setting out freight cars at industries, or passenger trains arriving at a station to be turned around or quite a few other things, then you can abstract away much (or even all) that other traffic without losing anything important to you.
Ah, that is an argument that is hard to counter. If you need to justify having a huge collection of models, then any argument which is accepted by the commander-in-chief is a good argument :-)
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.