Anybody tried DCC and went back to DC?

Hi Alan,


Correct!
It also allows me to take over any railway function I feel I would like to take on. It's NOT 100% automatic.

My philosophy is and has been for the last 20 odd years to move the complication of electrical operation to hard wiring and with this/these present layouts to move the complication from hard wiring to software.
A simple example would be spur and route traction current. I just use the electrical switching of turnouts to link power to the track beyond. Another example is basic route control; if a siding could only be accessed via two turnouts in series then throwing the final turnout causes the preceding turnouts to be thrown. Add in signals - a turnout can't be thrown when it clashes with an already set route. (defined by 'clear' signals) A signal can't be cleared until there is a route set. It's basic interlocking as used on my chosen prototype. Previously I hard wired it all, with additional switches stacked on each point motor. On the present layout I replaced the additional switches and hard wiring with software - much less hastle and easily altered.
I object to the time wasted in the past on building control panel hardware which has almost always been a step behind layout alterations.

I wouldn't even try to persuade you to do it otherwise (electrically). I personally would do it with DC, but for a club layout you would become dependent on me being there to fix any faults or else spend a lot of time on scenery. =8^)

Sure, but then you will come up against the limitations of DCC at some point. or not. If you do then you're dependent on the DCC producers having a technological work-around.
For me, with much of my layout in hidden staging yards, electrical block operation was the only practical way. Yes, there are _now_ technological work-arounds, but there weren't when I started the layout and they are expensive today in the numbers I would require. The second problem was the actual loco recognition, and in spite of the insults thrown at me by various people on this ng in regards to it, it was a very real stumbling point.

Sure, but ... - signalling is a part of the hobby. - prototype operation is a part of the hobby. - electrical wiring is enjoyable.
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. Even under the German operating rules and procedures there is provision for more than one train in a block.
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
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:03:21 +1000, mark_newton wrote:

[hic!]
Repetitiously redundant.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have friend who went from DC to DCC and man he had more trouble with his DCC, and after spending so much money for it. could never get the engines running, and being anchored to the layout with a long cord. I find it just a good if not better to run DC and use the block system, my layout is 23x16 feet and 420 feet of track and it works great and has for many years. Keep on a tracking.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thank you all for turning this thread into a major pissin' contest. It is so good to see that everybody is so eager to argue about pretty much anything. Nothing is better than a healthy remote, non-real-time argument
Seeing how this goes on just about modeling choices no wonder we can't have any world peace (sorry, I needed to throw this one in).
Carry on ....
Peteski
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We will never have World Peace while the USa insists that it has the answers while not understanding that it is the problem.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:30:31 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"

Yeah.
Let the Kiwis police the world and keep those terrorists in line. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter W. wrote:
"Thank you all for turning this thread into a major pissin' contest. It is so good to see that everybody is so eager to argue about pretty much anything."
We're model railroaders *this* is what we do best.
"Nothing is better than a healthy remote, non-real-time argument"
great isn't it? ;-)
"Seeing how this goes on just about modeling choices no wonder we can't have any world peace (sorry, I needed to throw this one in)."
World peace is overrated.
Eric
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ok, I'll start all over again! The subject line defines the question. An implied question is " why did you give up on DCC?"
I tried to answer those two questions in an honest manner.
In response I've been told that: - I'm wrong, (very odd as I was refering to my personal experiences) - that I don't know anything about US railroad operations (again odd as I don't model US railroad operations) - that I'm a liar. (wierd, unless some of you reside in my mind).
I'm quite happy to discuss DCC vs DC but I'm getting pissed off at having my integrity and knowledge questioned. Roger T for example just sent me a long e-mail and finished it by telling me he has blanked me - fine, but why send a discussive email if he doesn't want a response?
Both DC and DCC have limitations, different limitations. DC didn't do what I want so I investigated DCC. It cost vastly more and didn't do what I wanted on one of my three layouts so I rejected it.
As to US/North American operation, this has existed for circa 180 years now and has _never_ had one overall operating system. Some parts of the system operate block systems just like those of Europe, some used the Tyler token system as was used here in New Zealand c1890-1970 etc etc.
Regards, Greg.P. New Zealand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg.Procter wrote:
>>> Ok, I'll start all over again! The subject line defines the >>> question. An implied question is " why did you give up on DCC?" >> >>> I tried to answer those two questions in an honest manner. >> >>> In response I've been told that: - I'm wrong, (very odd as I was >>> refering to my personal experiences) - that I don't know anything >>> about US railroad operations (again odd as I don't model US >>> railroad operations) >> >> Whether you model it or not is irrelevant. You keep telling us >> we're running slotcars, hence our response that you're clueless. > > Two wires to the track, loco out of the box and on to the track, > zoom. Yep, that's "slotcar operation".
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 *NEVER* run a loco out of the box.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then perhaps I malign you by calling you a slot car operator. However I based that coment on the statements you had made up to that time.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mark_newton wrote:

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
http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
DC control circuit diagrams
HO scale track and wheel standards
Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wondered when you'd stick your bib in. Posted at 5.22pm, eh? You don't usually work late - assuming that you work at all!
NSWGR wrote:
> 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.
What prototypes were they modelling?
> That makes Greg's opinion valid.
Greg's opinion is based on nothing more than snobbery and ignorance, in equal measure. No wonder you reckon it's valid.
> Mark's expertise at using disgusting language and insults to hide his > a lack of model railway electrical knowledge is noted.
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.
>>> Two wires to the track, loco out of the box and on to the track, >>> zoom. Yep, that's "slotcar operation". >> >> 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. >> > 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.
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?
> On the other hand DCC models can be run on DC layouts without any > problems.
Who cares? I don't want to run my DCC models on DC layouts, so that "feature" is of no interest to me.
>> FWIW, I have a good deal more than two wires to the track. And I've >> *NEVER* run a loco out of the box. > > 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.
You're truly a dickhead, Flynn. Or is this an attempt at humour?
> 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.
No, I'm not.
> 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.
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???
> Interesting some DCC zealots here are happy to ignore Mark's > disgusting language.
Is it? Presumably they're not repressed prudes and wannabe netkops?
Cheers,
Mark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I goofed. That should read "including choice of control system, power, and clearances (not to mention scale!).

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

It's ok, I ignored the contrived argument!
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Certainly - it's a contrived argument. That's what I said.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wel, it's *your* argument. All I did was apply it to other aspects of modelling that have equal bearing on compatibility.
Greg.P. wrote:

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

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
--
The lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now.
Modular furniture is cruel and unusual.
  Click to see the full signature.
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.