Anybody tried DCC and went back to DC?

Model railways is my _hobby_.

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.

Certainly, 'operation', not 'US operation', which as you say I probably know f*ck all about. (just enough to better you)

You're stating an absolute - do you imagine I couldn't produce evidence of US railroads which didn't have big, easy to see numbers on their locos since the 1880s?

I'm not interested in what 'many prototypes' did - if the prototype that I, or any other potential DCC user, didn't have big easily read numbers on the sides/ends of their locos the DCC requirement of recognition of model locos falls down.

On any

Possibly, but the recorders of such information are handily placed right beside the tracks. I'm not. Your theory, of course, falls down where there are multiple tracks past the recorder's place of ensconcement. If two trains pass at the same moment then the recorder cannot be expected to identify the loco number of the rearmost trains.

In my yard, I have multiple tracks (5), some of which will be occupied at any given moment. The through tracks are at the rear while the front tracks are storage lines. I suppose I could have flipped the plan, but that would have made the alignment of the through tracks a bit rugged or reversed everything in relationship to the prototype, but the station building etc would then have been between me and the locos. With 5 tracks, there is always a 60%+ chance that any loco will be hidden behind other rolling stock.

Yeah yeah, a desktop computer standing in for a control panel - I'm familiar with the concept. It's a control panel displayed by way of a desktop computer - that's a control panel for all but the terminally pedantic arguer.

Regards, Greg.P.

Until this moment, no.

Essensially the same as the KISS principle

That one I know. (and generally practice)

The situation in hand is to make the track layout and traffic as complicated as possible so as to replicate the chosen prototype. I can't be the only person who wants to replicate complex prototype situations.

My control philosophy is to make the hands on operation as simple as possible by transfering the complication to either hardware/hardwire or on this present layout to software.

Go stand at any medium/major railway station and watch the traffic. You no sooner focus on one arriving or departing train than another interesting movement occurs. If I wanted minimalism I would model the railway that runs past my front window, where one, or on a busy day two, trains will roll past and return an hour or three later. (actually, I am modelling it, but in G24 scale in the garden)

Certainly, but after 47 years in the hobby I've figured out which parts of the hobby I enjoy, and operating complexity is right up there with operation, as is loco construction, signalling etc etc.

Exactly, and that's why I tend to jump in when beginners are told that DCC is the Holy Grail.

You have another - please, do tell! (what have I missed??? =8^)

Touchee.

The difference I see is between replicating the/a prototype and justifying having a huge collection of models. ;-)

True, but I've tried and discarded all the possibilities I have been aware of.

I always do.

Regards, Greg.P.

So you're suggesting that I should operate my model railway with inferior and outdated technology .(ie far inferior decoders to those produced today)

That's not a suggestion I'm liable to embrace!!!

Regards, Greg.P.

I think that I want to model a specific form of operation and that DCC hasn't turned out to be the best method of achieving that. Given the number of railways worldwide that operate at or near their maximum capacity, I can't be the only one who has come up against the inherent limitations of DCC.

Err, ok if you say so! Care to justify your statement?

I possibly have a few bizarre ideas in my head, but everyone using "Blockfeld" instruments isn't one of them.

Regards, Greg.P.

You're not the greatest when it comes to thinking, are you!

I responded to the assertion that US locos have had big, easy to read numbers since the 1880s. Yes, I can locate numerous photos of US locos since the 1880s that didn't have big, easy to read numbers on their sides.

There's my point - trains don't run into blocks/sections/call them what you, will with _only_ an order and a time division any more. There have to be other safeguards _in addition_.

and other

I'm happy that I'm justified in making most of the statements. I have read up and I do operate my layout according to each (well, most of) the rulesets. The only statements where I may have gone wrong are in some quick responses to Mark and Roger.

He outwitted someone? Were they awake at the time?

Klick back to the beginnings of the various DCC threads.

You infered that from my statements. No, I implied that the useby period was about 5 years before better decoders made a chage imperitive.

Sure the decision to upgrade is a subjective one, I reject 14 step speed control.

So you're suggesting I change from what you see as "inferior and outdated technology" to what I see as "inferior and outdated technology". You are kidding? Tell me you're kidding???

Regards, Greg.P.

I said "When I started in DCC ..." No, I most definitely couldn't get any decoders for US$12-15- One couldn't even buy US scourced decoders back then.

Very true. It's my layout and I'll set whatever standards I choose. Putting it quite plainly, I would have had to have replaced my original decoders two or three times - before the advent of sound decoders. That's MY standard.

Those older

Sure, I have a number of them still.

Why would I want to operate scenery with decoders? Fixed wiring works very well without decoders!

It was a cheap crack and I apologise for it to all and every serious modeller still reading. I model old-time German stock as at 1932, the majority of (model) locos at that moment were small and the model's interiors are full of metal where the model introduction was more than about 10 years ago. Fitting decoders is generally a matter of milling and soldering.

Sure - but there are a lot of problems being discussed.

Why? They didn't exist when I started this layout. You want me to replace 100 odd decoders for a forth time!!!

Of course it's a subjective statement. It's my layout and my money.

And besides, do you mean to tell me that absolutely nothing

Of course they did:

- space most definitely limited my design - I'm one of those rare modellers who doesn't have as much space as he would like - imagine! ;-)

- time. Hmmm, I've already booked a second lifetime, no response back yet from the suppliers.

- money; hell, absolutely no problem there, I could have sold the kids if I'd ever been short.

- available supplies? Sheesh, I used to send people to Communist East Germay just to collect Piko models.

- scale: I've had HO since 1959. I didn't like the scale compromises of smaller scales and I have G24 in the garden. (well, more correctly I have rolling stock in the lounge and I will have a layout in the garden shortly) HO was a given. Space was a given. Prototype was a given. Time and money ditto. From that point I wrote myself a list of the things I wanted to achieve and then as the track plan developed I trimmed off or back the least important items until I had achieved as much as I could. Then I built the baseboards and laid much of the track. From there it was a process of how I was going to control, then how I was going to operate, ...control, ...operate, ...control, ...operate until I arrived at an acceptable scheme. DCC was in there early on but eventually I realized that it wasn't going to suit my requirements. It wasn't an easily reached decision as I already had purchased the basic control gear and a lot of decoders.

Regards, Greg.P.

You're not keeping up with the discussion, are you Mark. Why would I make any such remark except in response???

I have responded to idiots who claim to have a far greater knowledge, insight and understanding than I do ...

That accusation is obviously stupid because those making the accusations can't know the depth of my knowledge, insight and understanding of a subject and prototype that differs greatly from that which they have experience of, let alone compare it to their own.

The original question solicited responses in regard to DCC and particularly those who had tried it and rejected it. I simply responded to those (implied) questions to the best of my ability.

Why exactly would I want to test the depth of knowledge of individuals I don't know on a subject that doesn't impinge on my modelling? It was they who were questioning my depth of knowledge. Being a helpful sort of person I attempted to respond to a reasonable depth, and in response I've been called a number of unpleasant terms.

When I want or need to learn more about US railroad operation I'll ask, meanwhile, I've read almost every issue of MR since the mid-1960s as well as a good number of US books, with interest, as well as reading these ngs for the last 10 odd years, so anyone who calls me totally ignorant of the subject is wide of the mark.

Regards, Greg.P.

PS I consider it particularly rude of you to post to my email three separate times and then complain to my provider when I responded. I assume such behaviour isn't common to all yanks?

Regards, Greg.P.

All of which are interesting, but to me they are not important features of DCC. They're nice, but not vital. To me, the greatest advantage of DCC is that it frees you from the artificial and unrealistic restrictions of electrical blocks.

Exactly as they are in other systems of safeworking. The fact remains that such circumstances are allowed for, but your system doesn't.

You attribute comments and statements to people who never made them, and keep doing so after they tell you that they didn't make those statements

- that's lying in my book.

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?

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 Weichenwärter 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.

Any system where there are unattended loops or interlockings. Common in the UK, Australia and the US.

All of which are interesting, but to me they are not important features of DCC. They're nice, but not vital. To me, the greatest advantage of DCC is that it frees you from the artificial and unrealistic restrictions of electrical blocks.

Exactly as they are in other systems of safeworking. The fact remains that such circumstances are allowed for, but your system doesn't.