Anybody tried DCC and went back to DC?

It's certainly a possibility. However as I seem to be well liked outside of this ng and find myself welcomed most places I go I tend to think the problem might be elsewhere.

Regards, Greg.P.

Anyone who starts sending me obnoxious and offensive emails and demands that I don't respond isn't any sort of judge on who is the problem.

Regards, Greg.P.

You're a true Hun. No wonder you model German railways. I take responsibility for my own posts - and no-one elses.

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.

There is no technical reason why you cannot run trains like slot cars using DCC. The layouts Ive seen recently at exhibitions that ignore prototype rules including unrealistic short separation between trains are DCC operated. That makes Greg's opinion valid. Mark's expertise at using disgusting language and insults to hide his a lack of model railway electrical knowledge is noted.

It's the DCC users like Mark the expert that are snobs. I can't run my DC models on his DCC layout without risking damage to my models. On the other hand DCC models can be run on DC layouts without any problems.

Does Mark the expert cut little holes in the box to allow electrical contact with the wheels. All operating models I see on operating layouts are out of the box before being placed on the layout. It's also amusing to note Mark the expert a far as I know is now a trainee driver of Sydney (Australia) City Rail junk. It's a system where automatic block is the norm and the driver or guard does not control the route and there a plenty of non computer control panels still in use. It also does not have large 4 digit numbers painted on the side of the electric trains to make it easier for DCC users. So why did Mark the expert mention his employment for a railway that does not operate the same system as the prototypes he or Greg models? We never get any detail of how Marks layout is wired or how he operates it. He just uses foul and disgusting language to cover up his lack of knowledge and experience on the subject. Interesting some DCC zealots here are happy to ignore Mark's disgusting language.

Terry Flynn

DC control circuit diagrams

HO scale track and wheel standards

Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet

What prototypes were they modelling?

Greg's opinion is based on nothing more than snobbery and ignorance, in equal measure. No wonder you reckon it's valid.

Ah, some classic Flynn bullshit. I have nothing to hide, as I've never claimed to have any particular "model railway electrical knowledge". That's because I'm interested in being a railway modeller, not in being an amateur electrical and/or electronics engineer. The less I need to know about arcane electronic bullshit the better.

Tough shit, eh? But then, why would you want to run 1/87th/HO/standard gauge NSWGR models on a 1/80th/HOj/narrow gauge Japanese layout? Do you reckon *that's* prototypical?

Who cares? I don't want to run my DCC models on DC layouts, so that "feature" is of no interest to me.

You're truly a d*****ad, Flynn. Or is this an attempt at humour?

No, I'm not.

As I've stated above, and previously - I have no particular depth of "model railway electrical knowledge", and I hope I never have to. If you have a fetish for old telephone relays, homemade power supplies and complicated electromechanical gadgets, then bully for you. I couldn't give a big rat's arse about any of that rubbish. I'm interested in the end, not the means.

As for my method of operation, I wonder how many more times I have to mention timetable and train order???

Is it? Presumably they're not repressed prudes and wannabe netkops?

Cheers,

Mark.

I have to take exception to this.

First, this definition of "snob" includes every modeller who doesn't include accommodating every possible visitor's modelling in their own work - including choice of scale, control and power systems, and clearances (not to mention scale!). I'd love to hear how I am supposed to live up to that standard.

Second - has anyone here actually seen a DC locomotive that was damaged by being operated on DCC? I have never seen such a case in person, nor heard a firsthand account of one. I'd like to, just so I could see what it looks like.

The fact that I've never seen the phenomenon could, of course, have to do with the fact that the "song" of a DC motor on a DCC layout is sufficiently irksome that nobody I know leaves a DC engine running that way for long, much less idling for the prolonged period that may be neccessary to do any damage.

Dubya

Terry Flynn wrote:

I goofed. That should read "including choice of control system, power, and clearances (not to mention scale!).

mention scale!).

Not aware of any damage but, as you note below:

It sounds bad and the performance, in my limited experience, is really, REALLY bad. One cab (address 0) can be driven with "elongated zero" (I think that's the correct term ?:) and max throttle is less than half of normal DCC operation (which is usually about 70% of straight DC in my, again, limited experience with this).

I do run DCC equipped loco's on a DC layout with reqularity and have noticed no hints of damage to the loco, decoder or layout.

Paul

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:01:40 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and "Greg.P." instead replied:

The subject line says it all.

-- Ray

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.

LOL - the pedant is out-pedanted from left field!

Let's not even think about the possibility =8^O

I have to disagree with you there, Mark has clearly stated he uses the two-wire system! I'm sure he is fully conversant with the uses of both of them!

He just uses foul and

You should see the e-mails I have been getting from DCC zealots - up to and including being accused of terrorism!

Yes! The first loco I ever seriously tried on DCC (Roco) emitted smoke and failed to move again. The motor overheated and fried. It was in fact the only Diesel model I owned at the time and the smoke rising from the cab windows looked somewhat incongruous.

I have never seen such a case in person, nor

Well, now you have!

That's one more reason for discounting that often touted "advantage" of DCC.

Regards, Greg.P.

It's ok, I ignored the contrived argument!

Regards, Greg.P.

MOROP added 'era 0' later to cover 1835-1870.

Regards, Greg.P.

The moment you support someone else's proposition by arguing that my position is wrong then you are supporting that proposition - in this case that US railways use time separation (+ rules + train orders) to keep trains apart.

Time separation cannot by itself safely keep trains apart (given rational, same day periods), so I'm puzzled as to what sort of rule or train order can change that. I'm wide open to being informed by those in the know!

Regards, Greg.P.

Certainly - it's a contrived argument. That's what I said.

Regards, Greg.P.

"Greg.P." wrote in news:edao25$kq6$ snipped-for-privacy@lust.ihug.co.nz:

The way I read him, Greg is saying roughly that he believes that it is likely that crashes eventually would occur if two trains are on the same stretch of line, if the *only* thing preventing a crash is that the inferior train follows the rules and take to a siding and wait there until the superior train is past.

Yes, crashes can and do happen in unsignalled territory if people out there do not follow the rules religiously. Like in the early morning hours of January 6th 2005, in Griniteville, when the crew of a local freight train lined a turnout to take their train into a siding, and somehow forgot to put the turnout back to the normal position, thus causing a train which was supposed to pass to be sent into the siding. Chlorine was released from wrecked tank cars. 9 dead, a lot of people evacuated for a while.

That was "a conflict" - a crash. But those two trains did not have "conflicting orders". The local was supposed to get the heck off the main track before the passing train was supposed to get there. There is a difference between not following your orders/doing something the wrong way while attempting to follow your orders and issuing wrong orders.

No. The first (inferior) train *should* move off the stretch of line (take a siding) when the superior train is expected and stay there until it has passed. But there is nothing (in principle) that prevents the superior train from *entering* the section if the inferior train hasn't gotten out of the way for some reason - like a mechanical breakdown.

You have precedence rules. But you are not automatically prevented from entering a stretch if there is already someone there.

These days trains have radios, so they typically will report taking the siding. Which makes it quite a bit safer in actual practice than in the days when Casey Jones plowed through another train which could not clear the main line fast enough.

In the olden days the conductor was sent running up the line with flares and things that went bang when you ran over them, to create an impromtu stop signal a safe distance behind or in front of a stalled train which could not get out of the way.

It is still more dangerous than having exclusive lock on a piece of line and ATC enforcing that lock. The main reason the US doesn't have ATC all over is that it is a huge country with a huge amount of line miles. It would be damned expensive to convert all of that to ATC. They apparently judge the cost of the occational accident to be less than the cost of using ATC all over. Which is their decission to make, of course.

Life is an inherently risky business, with a 100% fatality rate eventually :-)

Grin, Stein

Well you could have a good read through this 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

Keith

Keith