You were interested enough to mention it when you thought you could score some points with it...
As I noted before, that's a limitation of the individuals eyesight, not DCC.
Really? Again, you display your ignorance and lack of real-life experience. And it's not a theory, it's an observable and repeatable situation, a fact of train operation everywhere you go. I've worked in a 'box overlooking a six-track mainline, and had to enter loco/run numbers for six trains simultaneously. Yes, it's dificult, but it's by no means impossible. Noting the loco numbers of two train passing simultaneously is a piece of piss!
No, Greg, the onus is on you to support your assertions. That's how these things work. When you post a reply like this I'm inclined to think that at best, you're lazy, and at the worst, you're lying again.
Ah, well, with that remark you've given the game away. You're simply a snob, like your soulmate Terry Flynn. As such you're not worth wasting any more time on.
FWIW, I have a good deal more than two wires to the track. And I've
Sure, but isn't 'abstracting away' rather like playing soccer/football all by yourself on the field? ;-)
Why would I want to incorporate a (sort of/nearly) prototypical signalling system and then not use it?
That's a good argument, but how do I know it's right until I've tried? My layouts have been a progression of development over my time in the hobby. Some have focused on one or a limited number of activities and have had short operating lives. Others have been limited in scope by available space or money or knowledge or imagination :-) I figure I want the potential to replicate all the obvious operations of a railway, but I recognise that I can't be the entire staff of my railway at any given moment, nor will I accept only being able to operate once a month or once a week when I could assemble enough operators.
I just hide most of my collection, either in hidden staging or in boxes.
My current move has brought home to me just how many boxes I had stashed!
The claim in regard to depth of knowledge was theirs and related to me. My claim to knowledge is in relation to myself. That's something I can know to some extent.
Good, so explain it to me, rather than just indulging in destructive sniping. I'm a reasonable person, but I admit I do shoot back when attacked.
The people who have been questioning my depth of knowledge of their subjects apparently care. If you care to read my posts you'll see I include a fair amount of information on the subject in hand, even when responding to personal attacks.
We can all learn from each other if we give and take. So far I've learned some rather negative, non-railway related things about yanks from this exchange.
You thought right - however I'm assured by several people here, who know more than you and I combined, that only an order and a $2- watch are all that is needed.
However much authority the dispatcher has, he cannot keep two trains apart with only a watch at his and the respective drivers disposal.
Rules on paper also won't always keep two trains apart. That is why most railways stopped operating purely on a time separation way back in the nineteenth century.
This hobby is awesome. Here is a fine example of inventing a reality and then pretending you actually exist in that imaginary fake space.
Greg is the center of his imagined universe and has trouble differentiating reality from imagination. He craves the attention. Killfiles are your friend here.
Paul
P.S. - If you stop responding to him I will never see his nonsense and I would really, REALLY appreciate that. *8^)
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.
It's you who keeps demanding that I follow the rules of some obscure prototype you happen to model.
It's a limitation of DCC.
I don't need to note the numbers of the locomotives on my trains, because that didn't happen on my prototype. The TRAIN is what must be identified. The train number is the one written down. (It does/did not appear in big letters on the locomotive) Observation of front and rear markers was required.
I'm responding to more than a dozen aggressive posters each session, many with multiple responses. I'm not bothering to memorise or separate those in my mind, only those who are prepared to discuss reasonably. If you post obnoxiously you can take responsibility for Roger's and Obnoxious Pratt's etc statements until you take them to task also.
What other safeguards there are on your prefered prototype are for you to tell me. When you insist that purely 'time intervals between departures' I tend not to believe you. When one considers that a loaded wagon might have an average value of a million dollars and the loco (plucking a random number from the air - 50 million dollars) there's no problem in calculating that a cornfield meet might involve several hundred million dollars. 500 bucks for a GPS and a cell phone is a tiny amount in insurance.
Regards, Greg.P.
Here in New Zealand where such situations exist there is direct radio communication between driver and controller plus GPS in loco and on the controller's screen. In spite of those safeguards a "cornfield meet" was achieved only a few years ago.
You've already accused me of lying numerous times - call me lazy if you like but I'm certainly not inclined to spend any time looking for evidence to appease you. You lost it when you accused me of lying in regard to a comment I made where I stated it was my personal opinion.
If I were to state all my opinions and how I reached those conclussions in every posting we would both be here forever. If you want amplification of any point that interests you then I'm happy to give it, given my having the time.
I'll restate my original point: I tried DCC, it's limitations didn't allow me to achieve all that I want to achieve - I reverted to DC. There's no lie, no misrepresentation, no intent to mislead.
I'm happy to discuss the limitations I found, but not to be called a liar. I also can't be talked out of the limitations of DCC - they are limitations that affected me while attempting to utilize DCC. Some can perhaps be worked around, but that only adds to the cost and complication of the system, and at the time I made the decision the DCC route appeared more expensive and more complicated than my DC/computer system.
I'm modelling European railways, where slightly over 50% of the trains are passenger and are lit much of the time. Constant lighting is a biggie for me.
To me, the greatest advantage of
Sure, but I'm modelling a prototype that used signalling blocks to achieve the highest practical usage of it's main line. If I already have to block my track electrically for detection and signalling then your "greatest advantage of DCC" is negated.
Situations where more than one train is allowed per block are specific exceptions, allowed for and controlled by specific rules. Almost any rule has exceptions. In German railway practice any exception has it's own rule. =8^)
I'll admit that my command of German is not fluent and that my understanding of the rules I apply to my specific modelled prototype are somewhat labouriously translated. However I'm confident that I have applied (almost :-) all the relevant ones. On my mainline there are no normal situations where one train should enter a block already occupied by another. Exceptional circumstances have another set of rules to be applied, and there DCC would have an advantage over my block electrical system. I'm quite happy to ignore the possibilty of such exceptional circumstances as they would add very little to the potential of my layout.
Operations within station confines are another matter which I addressed reasonably fully in another post.
Analogue control with an in-loco decoder able to be addressed by overlaying traction current with a digital command to switch the usual functions but also including on/off control of traction current. All this would involve in regard to (most) present day DCC decoders is a change of programming. The control equipment would be a little more complicated, involving a DCC command generator intervening between the analogue output and the track.
There's (one of) our points of difference - the restriction of blocks is prototypical on many railways whereas the "advantage" of DCC is contradictory to block control.
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.