Anybody tried DCC and went back to DC?



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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Advantage? It's a feature, but I've never seen it called an advantage. More of an "if you really want to" item that the NMRA wrote into the standard and the manufacturers complied with.
I certainly don't recommend address-0 operation on DCC as a good way to run DC locos - mainly because the noise it makes is annoying. That said, in my experience the phenomenon of such operation damaging or destroying motors is not widespread, at least not in HO scale. Besides, I don't think that that cross compatibility with the other system is a reason to buy or to not buy either one in any case.
There are several perfectly valid reasons why one might choose DC over DCC, or vice versa. The only reason I can imagine why this would be one of them would be if the plan is to make extensive use of other people's models on your layout.
Greg.P. wrote:

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

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.

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

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg.P. wrote:
> > >> Replies interspersed: >> >>> Lenz created it - the NMRA copied the English language version of >>> the Lenz handbook. >> >> So? The NMRA chose to work with an available standard, and chose to >> include address 0. They could have removed it from the spec, and >> didn't. We're not debating credit for inventing DCC. > > The NMRA is irrelevant to DCC.
Fuck me drunk! - chanelling Flynn now, are ya?
> I already said there are valid reasons to go with either DC or > >> DCC, I just think that your particular reason to condemn the >> technology are based upon a narrower set of circumstances than is >> the norm. >> > 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.
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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Say what? *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PV wrote:

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

No, it was quite straightforward. Lenz created the specific system and made it an open system outside his own German market.
the

He guarenteed himself a fair chunk of sales by patenting his system in his own sales sphere.
and

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PV wrote:
> >>> So? The NMRA chose to work with an available standard, and chose >>> to include address 0. They could have removed it from the spec, >>> and didn't. We're not debating credit for inventing DCC. >> >> The NMRA is irrelevant to DCC. > > Say what? *
My thoughts were pretty much the same - I expect this claim will generate much heate discussion, both from Procter and his alter-ego Flynn...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

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

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!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:01:40 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"

The subject line says it all. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
instead replied:

You have every right to defend yourself - however now everyone knows it was you accusing me of terrorism - are you stupid or what?
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
instead replied:

Do get it straight Ray, you sent me three abusive emails, each telling me not to respond and each a bit more abusive than the previous one - why would I not respond to unsolicited abusive emails from a newsgroup poster? Why would I call you a terrorist other than in response to your accusations?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
instead replied:

Trust me Ray, your emails were extremely abusive. You started it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
instead replied:

I only ever responded to your emails - I don't even like you so why would I want to contact you?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
instead replied:

Ray, as far as I'm aware you were the first to send me an e-mail. Many many posts ago I said publically on this ng that if I was in error then I apologise but that I wasn't aware of having initiated personal emails. The first email I recieved from you was abusive in tone and word and I responded in kind. From there you escalated the level of abuse and I again responded in kind. YOU made the accusation that I was a terrorist and I pointed out that I had no part in any such activities, unlike the USa which both sponsors and carries out terrorist actions around the world. If others take offense at that statement I'll point out that the USa actively blocked New Zealand in bringing to justice the terrorists who carried out the only terrorist attack so far on New Zealand soil.
To sumarise, Ray: Rightly or wrongly, I consider you to have started this exchange, and I consider your ongoing attacks on me to be utterly childish and pathetic. I made the attempt to sort the situation and your response was further abuse. Obviously you only want to build vendettas, not discuss model railways.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
instead replied:

OK, I apologise a second time.

You think World Terrorisim isn't abrasive? You think comments like Bushes "you're either with us or against us" isn't abrasive? I _reacted_ to something in your post which annoyed me - I wouldn't bring politics or political comments into railway discussions without one already being there to respond to.

Thank you. I expected that reaction to my first apology.
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.