Anybody tried DCC and went back to DC?



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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg.P. wrote:
> I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the > layout is not about driving individual trains around tracks but about > numerous trains operating at once to give an impression of the way > _railways_ operate.
I wondered how long it would be before you started posting this nonsensical bullshit again.
> As railways operate by block, with only one train per block...
As you have been told *REPEATEDLY*, that is not always the case. How many times do you need to be reminded that the operating rules for German railways are not the same as those for other systems in other countries, the USA in particular? How many more times are you going to argue the toss with knowledgable people who run trains for a living???
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I post such bullshit as a reaction to your (collective as well as individual) bullshit. You keep coming up with this "DCC is the ultimate" crap. It's one form of control that has a lot of advantages and some major shortcomings. DCC isn't the only way to achieve many of the functions available at the outputs of loco decoders, but unfortunately most electronics producers have jumped on the DCC bandwagon and totally ignored the other possibilities.

Block control is normal on most railways of the world.
How

The USa is just one country in the world. You are circa 5% of the world's population and possibly 1% of the World's railways.

My point is and always has been that DCC is a very limiting answer to multiple model train control. It appeals to beginners. Once you settle on that system you limit the potential of model railways.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Handbrake please!

Name me a control system that doesn't.

Because DCC is an open system with described standards -- this means that multiple manufacturers can all add components to a common system. This is typically good for the customer, who gets to choose what he wants. Closed/propietary systems have the disadvantage that theey either limit you to equipment from that manufacturer, or worse, if said producer goes under, you're out of luck - or in deep trouble.

Is the system limited or your view of it ? There was a famous programmer once, who said that "Unix will be many things to many people, but it will never be everything to everyone" -- he was right.
Just the same, DCC *and* block control *and* DC control and whatever other control system you pick - it will be many things to many people, but none of them will be everythign to everyone -- everyone makes the choice they consider to be best for them - some stick with DC because it's the simplest to wire and build, some go for DCC which offers train control independent of track position, some choose block control because it fits their prototype or their operating style better -- every system has its pro's and con's.
Personally, I've chosen DC, so laugh at me and ridicule me, I don't care. It was MY choice because I liked it best. That said, I do understand why people choose other systems, and I respect their choice, and their enthusiasm in trying to explain its virtues. But that does not give me right nor position to slag them off just because their choice isn't mine.
Peace.
--
JB/NL < snipped-for-privacy@xs4all.nl>
If anyone asks me what I am, I will say I am myself.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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. <sheesh> 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.

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

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

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:54:09 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"

And you cannot know theirs. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
instead replied:

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.

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

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.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg.P. wrote:
> 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.
I'd say they were spot-on! You keep asserting that TT/TO working cannot possibly function, and was replaced by the end of the 19th century. So on that basis, I say you're ignorant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Time Table and Train Order control systems were demonstrated to not work safely in isolation during the 19th century, where multiple trains are sent into uncontrolled sections without any further safeguards. There has to be some further safeguard, which you are apparently ignorant of.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because otherwise, eventually a train behind will catch up to the one in front, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Writing "Rule 25.7.1 The train behind must not catch up with the one ahead." or "Rule 17a: the train ahead must not lose time or stop while ahead of the one behind." will NOT keep trains apart.
Because you can't

Because I can't conceive of a written rule that will allow two trains to run on a single track section that will keep them apart under all circumstances.

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

Well you could have a good read through this <http://www.cwrr.com/Lounge/Reference/rules/title.html It won't take any more of your time than reading all the emails and responding to everyone and it would give the rest of us a break.
None of this is as simple as is made out by either side. All forms of railway working rely on human beings following rules to ensure safety. Developments in this area have generally been made by developing technology to reduce the likelyhood and or consequence of those errors. Providing lineside signals for the driver to obey shifted quite a bit of the responsibility from the train crew to the signal operator and the prime cause of crashes became 'signalmans error'. So interlocking and track circuits etc were introduced to the point where signalmans error became almost impossible. At this stage the prime cause goes back to driver error with 'signals passed at danger' or SPADs. But there is also now another group in the equation who can make errors, the maintenance technicians, and there have been bad crashes from their mistakes as well. Driver error is now addressed by Cab Signals, ATC, AWS, Indusi, etc. providing means of automatically stopping trains if signals are not obeyed or even replacing the driver all together. Even more reliant on the technician doing the right thing.
All of these systems have been and are used in North America just as in Europe where circumstances have been appropriate. But now that the current technology of Radio GPS and Computers have made possible automatic safe working systems that need little or no lineside equipment it is possible to jump straight from Timetable and Train order (or the much more common these days, TWC Track Warrant Control) into full automation with no visible evidence out on the railroad and this is happening. No more 'dark territory'.See for example <http://www.switchptc.com/subsystems.htm
Keith
Keith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good point. That's the principle we use for trackside signal lights here in Norway, too. A typical lineside signal has three lights - two with green glass, one with red glass.
    Two green means clear and next signal down the line green too     One green means clear, but next signal not green     One red means stop.     No light means stop      So if one light bulb burns out, your speed goes down (or you stop).
Same with the train control board at the traffic control center. Dark section means occupied, lit section means clear. Light burn out, and the section looks like it is occupied instead of clear. Slows things down if a light bulb burns out, but you don't get an accident.
You cannot prevent equipment failure or human error. They *will* happen. What you can do is try to minimize the consequences of error.
Thanks for the line to General code of operating rules.
Smile, Stein
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edward A. Oates wrote:

It also showed some of the shortcomings of the systems.
I work for Babcock & Wilcox Vlund in Denmark. We design and construct waste-fired steam boilers for the Eurepean marked. I work with the design of secondary systems and control & monitoring systems. Have a look at our web page http://www.volund.dk /
When the normal feed water supply fails, even on waste-fired plants we have a back-up, either an emergency diesel-driven generator supplying power to a feed water pump, or a dedicated feed water pump driven by a steam turbine.
We always have physical end position switches on controlled valves in the steam and water systems, the switches are hard-wired to the control & monitoring system.
As for safety relief valves, normally they will close when the pressure drops below the set pressure limit but this is not monitored as it is a very rare occurence. Normally it is not a problem as the blow-off is rather noisy and can be heard from the control room. A more probable fault with such valves is that the valve closes but is leaking. We have no way of detecting this automatically, this is why such valves must be checked visually by the operator after a blow-off.

You really don't know that yet. The people working on the plant received the highest radiation doses. If some of them die from cancer 40+ years after the incident, this may be caused by the exposure.
--
Venlig hilsen
Erik Olsen
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 11:34:08 +0200, Erik Olsen wrote:

Now, eh?
"In order to prevent that pressure from becoming excessive, the pilot-operated relief valve (a valve located at the top of the pressurizer) opened. The valve should have closed when the pressure decreased by a certain amount, but it did not. Signals available to the operator failed to show that the valve was still open. As a result, cooling water poured out of the stuck-open valve and caused the core of the reactor to overheat."
- from the NRC Fact Sheet on TMI:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
At least my uncle could see when safety valves popped on his NKP Berkshire *, but at TMI even if they could have seen it they couldn't get near it.
* mandatory RR content
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article 81fc3$44faa17c$3e3d8433$ snipped-for-privacy@news.arrownet.dk, Erik Olsen at snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.invalid wrote on 9/3/06 2:34 AM:

No studies to day, including the lawsuit have determined that the radiation exposure has caused any problems, or was severe enough to have caused problems. The cancer rate in the three mile island area and among the workers is within normal ranges.
So, you may be right that there are still some lingering issues awaiting discovery, but there are zero facts supporting that, so it is only speculation.
It is not speculation that the use of coal fired plants instead of nuclear plants in the US and world wide has increase CO2 emissions, and through the release of various particulate which are mildly radioactive (pitch blend, after all, is the substance from which radium was initially isolated) and have contributed to vastly more illnesses, including cancers, than a like generating capacity from fission plants would have caused, barring a Chernoble like accident. Frances experience is noteworthy in this regard.
--
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 9/3/06 2:34 AM:

The simple answer is not to keep on using/requiring more and more power, but to make your usage of energy more efficient. The US uses twice the energy per capita than other comparable nations.
Regards, Greg.P.
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.