>> 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*
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