DCC - why not?

Use 6P6T rotary switches. You can wire the second and third for the DC cabs and when you go DCC, just wire it to the fourth. Leave the first position
unwired for an off position.
--

Frank Rosenbaum
Please support the following train meets if you can
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My reason is $$$, pure and simple. I had a system but it went belly up. I'm going to buy a different one but just don't have the free $$. I don't want an entry system because I've used some advanced features and I want a specific brand. So I have to wait until I have the bucks to spend. Or at least until the sweet wifey says ok to putting it on the credit card :-). Yeah, DCC is definately in my future. If not I'll switch to building non railroad model kits.
Life goes on within you and without you. Jb

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

Layout not built yet. When it does get built it will definitely be DCC powered.
--

Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark, I just got an NCE Power Cab a few weeks ago. I have been looking into all the various systems for several years now and just kept waiting to see what might develop. Price was certainly a consideration however value was of greater concern. I wanted compatibility with some of the features of the more advanced systems but only needed to accommodate two operators. The Power Cab fit that need well at a modest price. As far as decoders go I only need seven total. Two for the diesel locomotives that are run on my timesaver and five for the steam locomotives on my layout so the total cost for me is low. One of the reasons I wanted DCC was to have control over sound and able to run two locomotives without having to switch power blocks between cabs. I wired the layout with DCC in mind but I still have blocks that can be turned on or off as way to help isolate problems. I think in DCC speak blocks are called power districts so that's what I have. I discovered after using DCC that I really like the ability to program the CVs to adjust locomotive performance and the actual control of them. I feel much more like I am operating a machine rather than just giving it more or less power. One thing I thought I would not be interested in using DCC for was to control turnouts but seeing how easy and intuitive my system is I may add this feature to the layout. Even though I wanted a DCC system I thought DCC might be over rated but now I feel otherwise. I can see that there are very valid reasons for people not to go with DCC but if a person does not need to decoder equip a large number of locomotives the cost is not high and benefits even for single locomotive operation are outstanding. Bruce

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

Mark,
My N scale layout was designed to allow 4 operators to work with minimal switch throwing: one operating each of the two yards, a 3rd running a local freight and a 4th running through trains. Athough the layout runs just fine like this, I usually get about a dozen guys show up to operate, so I've been looking into what I can do to keep more of them occupied.
I reckon that if I run two switchers in each yard, I'll be able to run two locals concurrently, and more frequent through trains. Sadly, these extra trains (especially in the yard) will increase the amount of switch throwing to the point where it will become painful.
When I first considered DCC I thought I'd have to convert all my locos at once. However, I've since realised that as I run my through trains one-at-a-time I can run them all on address "00" (ie leave the locos as DC locos), which means I will only have to convert about a dozen locos for yard and local switching.
So, yes, DCC is in my long range plans. But the cost is prohibitive at present (see my comments elsewhere on that).
Regards, Ron McF Australia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


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

Address 0 is not in my opinion suitable for extended use, especially with small motors, you had better include the other 30 decoders in your costing!
Keith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

DC
yard
Keith,
This is one thing that worried me, so I've done a fair bit of testing on a friend's DCC layout. The noise is annoying when the locos are stationary, but when they're moving all seems okay.
My through trains will usually only make one trip per session. They come online from staging, exchange cars at one yard, then run to the second yard (at the other end of the layout) and exchange more cars, before going back to staging. Total running time is only about 10 minutes. I don't expect that to be a problem, but if anyone would care to comment, I'm listening.
Ron
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


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

Simple. Our control system is 15 years old and is running with 76 current regulators. We could ditch those, buy boosters and decoders and make it run DCC, but why should we ?
If we had to start all over today, it would definitly be running DCC. Klaus
--
Modelbane Europas hjemmeside: http://www.modelbaneeuropa.hadsten.dk
Modeltog, internet, gratis spambekmpelse, elektronik og andet:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The cost and the effort.
I'd love to be able to have different brands of engines be able to run at the same speed. Plus, not having to have blocks.
Chris Curren
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The whole concept of controlling your trains and not having to control your track is completely lost on Flynn and a few others. They just don't get it. Flynn seems to be proud of his ability to jump through burning hoops with regard to mimicking many of DCCs features with DC. Bully for him. I can't be bothered with trying to prove to the world that I'm as smart as Keith Gutierrez, or A. J. Ireland, or Bernd Lenz, or Jim Scorse, so I run my trains with a command station and two wires to the track. Bugger all that DC and block control crap. I'll take plug and play, all the way. Oh yes, one other thing. Don't give me any knicker stains about having to install decoders. After you do the first one, it becomes a no-brainer.
-- arf arf
Diesel Dog
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:02:06 GMT, Diesel snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net wrote:

This tagline has been certified to contain no political rants.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even more interesting if you are into Z scale, but scale is a personal choice. You make your bed and you lie in it. -- arf arf
Diesel Dog
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:58:57 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Diesel snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net instead replied:

Some people lie everywhere, even on USENET. Beds are for laying. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Ray Haddad at snipped-for-privacy@iexpress.net.au wrote on 8/8/06 12:49 PM:

Most folks seem to forget which is which. Remember it as follows:
LIE in an intransitive verb (whether to indicate prevarication or reclining); so you LIE about something, or you LIE down. It means to be in or move onto a surface. To LIE in bed.
LAY is a transitive verb and takes an object: I will LAY on the bed; I LAY bricks. It means to put something on a surface
Remember: brick layer (one who LAYS bricks) remind yourself of which one is the transitive and takes an object, then use appropriately.
You make your bed and lie in it. You made your bed and lay in it. (Lay is the past tense if to lie).
--
Ed Oates
http://homepage.mac.com/edoates
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:26:22 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
replied:

It's all good fun here on USENET. The absurd notion of getting into bed just to tell tall tales amuses me. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Ray Haddad at snipped-for-privacy@iexpress.net.au wrote on 8/8/06 1:29 PM:

I can think of lots of folks who tell TALL tales prior to getting into bed, just to have their tails belie them.
--
Ed Oates
http://homepage.mac.com/edoates
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edward A. Oates spake thus:

I was lying in bed. As I lay there, I lied, so I was lying in bed. (I lied by telling a tale.) As a result, I was punished and grew a tail. My tail was lying in bed with me as I was lying in bed (telling a tale) while lying in bed.
Now I have a tell-tale tail.
--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And so explains why English (American) is hard to learn and even harder for those of us for whom it's a native language.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:26:22 GMT, Edward A. Oates wrote:

I laid down to lay some pipe?
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article 1soaifpazo9zp.10as91sciypag$. snipped-for-privacy@40tude.net, Steve Caple at snipped-for-privacy@commoncast.net wrote on 8/8/06 9:58 PM:

I believe that is
"I lay down to lay some pipe."
"Lay" is the past tense of the intransitive verb "to lie:" in your sentence above, "laid," being the past tense of the transitive verb "to lay" in incorrectly used. In the second use of "lay," you are correct since it is used with an object, "some pipe."
Yours in remedial English (which I took at Cal as "Subject A" some years ago....). I'm pretty good at mechanics, lousy at actually writing.
--
Ed Oates
http://homepage.mac.com/edoates
  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.