Anybody tried DCC and went back to DC?

TT/TO doesn't separate trains - one train per block operation does.

Whatever - I'll be away for a couple of weeks so you're going to have to be nice to Terry if you want to talk to anyone.

See you, Greg.P.

Lenz created it - the NMRA copied the English language version of the Lenz handbook.

How many difficult to replace motors do you want to burn out?

Besides,

It is when one has a large existing roster.

Hard evidence is of no interest to Procter. He'll simply post another one of his trademark dissembling and dishonest replies.

Fuck me drunk! - chanelling Flynn now, are ya?

How tiresome you are, Procter. For the purpose of this discussion, I'll concede that DCC is not suitable for your own *highly peculiar* modelling circumstances.

What I won't ever concede is the absolutely idiotic notion that by extension, DCC is unsuitable for any prototype that uses block working and signalling. If that were really the case, there would be no examples of layouts being designed, built and operated by professional railwaymen, who are using DCC to replicate the operation of block systems. And yet there are many, and their numbers are increasing.

How do you reconcile that fact with your boneheaded assertion that "modellers would be restricted by DCC to not be able to utilize the narrower set of circumstances many prototype operating rules set, particularly in block operation with intensive operation."? Are you going to fall back on your old favourite, that you know better than these professionals?

What evidence do you have to support that assertion, Procter?

Really? So by your "reasoning", permissive block working cannot separate trains, either?

Greg.P. wrote: >

As can happen with block working.

And yet you do it all the time...

Neither am I, d*****ad. I model one specific road, I use their specific rules.

You reckon you're more knowledgable than professional railroaders - good thing you weren't programming a real computer interlocking...

Sure, one would need a separate track for each train to ensure they stay apart. If all rules are obeyed signals and block signals do keep trains apart, but time separation at point of departure does not.

The NMRA is irrelevant to DCC.

Once burned with an irreplacable motor was enough for me.

Sure, but like my burned out irreplacable motor is to me, that one is your personal position.

and furthermore I have never heard or seen a DCC advocating the

Because some of us have large existing collections.

If anything, having a large roster of engines that must be

Probably no-one. However, being able to operate DCC locos in conjunction with DC locos on a multi-cab blocked railway has some potential. For example, bankers and/or the station shunter being able to operate on DCC in an analogue area is an attractive proposition. Fleischmann's FMZ offered this (80 loks), as did Trixes 1960s EMS (1 lok)

Sure, but I was prepared to add DCC to my large roster (80 locos at the time) IF DCC had offered significant advantages without work-unaroundable disadvantages.

I already said there are valid reasons to go with either DC or

Possibly, but the original question asked who and by inference why. I answered those questions. OTOH, I suggest that modellers would be restricted by DCC to not be able to utilize the narrower set of circumstances many prototype operating rules set, particularly in block operation with intensive operation. Intensive operation is the apparent promise of DCC. Where it does shine is in intensive operation on a small layout or in club and modular situations where wiring needs to be kept as simple as possible.

Regards, Greg.P.

Plenty of prototype block and/or interlocking systems that fail to protect against an obstruction dropped in mid block by the hand of god! Keith

in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Keith at snipped-for-privacy@dsl.pipex.com wrote on 9/8/06 11:01 AM:

Heck, in my model of the prototype, I've seen the elbow of god (EOG) cause accidents while the hand of god (HOG) is using Digital Manipulation  to uncouple consists...;-)

Say what? *

Greg is once again speaking whereof he knows little or nothing.

Regardless of who invented DCC (and it was long and winding road), the fact is that the world-wide defacto standard is the one adopted by the NMRA. The NMRA worked with Lenz because Lenz was smart enough to realise that a North American standard guaranteed him a fair chunk of sales, and that when DCC was adopted elsewhere in the world, the N. American standard would prevail simply because manufacturers would have geared up to supply product built to that standard. And NMRA was smart enough to limit the standard to the essentials: power supply and wiring harness (physical compatibility); data format (logical compatibility); and the basic control functions (user interface compatibility.) It seems to me that this makes the NMRA very relevant to DCC. I just hope that the NMRA is more forceful in in ist lobbying to ensure conformity to standards. There are already some maverick versions of DCC out there, which are beginning to limit consumer choice.

The NMRA's watchword has always been "Standards for interchange" -- ie, standardise those items that are needed so that anybody can run his train on anybody else's layout.

Absolutely agreed, Keith. I just couldn't resist having a dig at Procter, the safeworking/interlocking/block working genius!

PV wrote: > "Greg.P." writes: >

My thoughts were pretty much the same - I expect this claim will generate much heate discussion, both from Procter and his alter-ego Flynn...

I'd love to see your examples!

You haven't presented any facts, only bluster and personal attacks.

Very true! But professional railway computer programmers make mistakes too.

Would I bring up (one of) my own failure(s) if I couldn't cope with your digs? We learn more from our mistakes and failures than we ever do from our successes. I don't mind sharing those lessons with others and if it finally gives you some factual evidence to throw around, so be it.

Regards, Greg.P.

The evidence is obvious - the separation is purely of time and human senses.

- For time to infallibly separate two trains, the separation needs to be longer than the traverse time of the section.

- for human senses to infallibly separate two trains, the speed must be restricted so that stopping distances are less than the distance able to be travelled within the limitations of those human senses.

See above factors.

Absolutely!

It's admittedly a rather too broad a statement, but we were discussing analogue operation via DCC, something that Lenz developed and the NMRA accepted - therefore the NMRA is irrelevant. (to that point)

Regards, Greg.P.