Got me beat, I've only been doing it for 36 years.
Which is why I don't like DC, all the DC layouts I've seen (including the one at ACCRS) require LOTS of button pushing and require more of it the more trains you run at one time. We have some single track sections and running just one of 3 trains in the opposite direction it's a continuous series of button pushing (cab control is via blender buttons).
If the luddites don't like buttons they should consider adopting button pushing minimization techniques. If Terry doesn't like buttons thats ok but, trying to justify it with a corner case environmoent is ridiculous. For shows where we just run trains in a circle hour after hour we could be winding them up each go around for all the difference it would make (THAT'S VERY SIMPLE WIRING!!).
How would you define a "properly designed DC system," or more importantly in the context of learing from other's mistakes: what makes a DC system poorly designed?
in article V99Gg.39873$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com, Mark Mathu at snipped-for-privacy@mathu.com wrote on 8/20/06 7:48 PM:
But someone had to press or toggle one for each block on the "automatic" circle, including setting any turnouts in the right direction.
Assuming every selection is incorrect at the out set, the equivalent for my DCC layout (which can only run two trains in loops unattended) is to set each turnout in right direction, select each loco on the DT400 (4 digit addresses means 6 buttons per loco), then set the directions (one for each), the twist each speed knob the desired speed, and let them run until I get tired, the electricity fails, or something goes off the tracks. I usually get tired first.
But I think button counting to determine the superiority of one over the other is silly and pointless. The question is still, what capabilities do you want, which implementation do you prefer to build, how much can you afford, and which way do you prefer to operate.
I tried both and prefer DCC; others will reach a different conclusion with exactly the same layout as I have.
While I basically agree with Jon on this, I *would* recommend that one stay away from the DCC "systems" being sold as a sideline.
In other words, buy your DCC system from a manufacturer who makes nothing but DCC systems.
While most if not all of those "sideline" DCC systems are easy to plug together and learn how to use, they almost universally have serious deficiencies in the long term when it comes to the ability to either expand or to increase their capabilities.
Actually, I built a system back in the early '60s (from a MR article) that was able to run several trains automatically on a single loop. Ultimately, I found the system to be basically boring just to see 3 trains chase each other about on some track.
-- Yeppie, Bush is such an idiot that He usually outwits everybody else. How dumb!
My DC tethered controllers cost about $10 to make. There just a box, cable, plug, pot, dial and a reverse switch as a minimum. Add a few resistors, leds and an extra switch or 2 for luxury features.
Commercial DC wireless controllers comparable to the digitrax ones do not exist. It's build your own or modify something. Wireless comes with its own problems and limits.
Each block only need 2 wires using the Oak Tree DC system you only need to go to the board, and then supply power cable to a transformer. Not much different to DCC wiring if you are sensible enough to separate your layout into separate blocks for fault finding or have train detection. The Oak tree system uses serial communication to the computer, just as your DCC system uses serial communication back to your command station. That means there is a negligible difference in wire required for both systems if you wire for reliability and easy fault finding.
The cost of a computer and software is the same for both DCC and DC.
Or you can build a DC system, avoid commercial DC computer systems or DCC and save lots of money, for example using my DC home made system it would cost me less than $500 with track detection and in cab walk around signalling.
Terry Flynn
formatting link
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
Call it what you want. Would you care to elaborate on what you think is "poor" about it?
The viewing public, for the most part, seems to enjoy it year after year. Operational it's a totally numbing experience, which was the point in mentioning it;
How interesting could the layout you described be?
: On my old manually switched cab control layout it took 2 key : switches and 2 plugs to get a train around the mainline.
Really? Then I guess that whole "A-B" switch and 3 micro toggles that allow one to change the frequency of the radio is for...what, exactly? You know, why don't you try reading up on the Aristo-Craft radio system. I used to use it before DCC, and other than it's usual DC limitations, it's not a bad system. You buy one radio reciever per train, and you can run two trains easily with only one transmitter by using the "A-B" switch if you want (and up to 16 trains total).
Sigh. Didn't I say that building your own throttles was *not* germane to this debate? This if for normal modelers, Terry. Not electrical engineers. Normal model railroaders do not build their own throttles, wind their own motor windings, or etch their own circuit boards, ok? Let's try to keep this debate in the realm of the possible for non-engineers. Otherwise, I could bring into the debate the fact that you can build your own DCC decoders, throttles, software, and the like. Is that reasonable? No, but it's possible.
And what would those "problems and limits" be? I've certainly never had that much of an issue with my Digitrax radios (200' range, so I've heard). BTW, too bad about the lack of DC analog radios, eh? Gee, maybe DCC does have something going for it after all...
Here's the thing, Terry. I don't have my layout divided up into blocks. I haven't for several years since the Zephyr came out. I don't have a problem with chasing down any shorts because, for one, a DCC short makes a high pitched sound that one can track down by ear. Secondly, most shorts are because something's derailed....which makes it pretty easy to spot. Since everthing is wired into one giant block and 90% of my switches are Atlas Code 83's (which don't short much at all, even under a derailment), I've never had a problem.
You need a computer for your super duper DC system, correct? I don't need a computer for my DCC layout.
Oh, I'm sure, I'm sure. :-) Just like that old curmudgeon in my club who used wires wrapped around nails pounded into a 2x4 for each block, then used an alligator clip to "switch" blocks on an off. He looked like an old telephone operator with wires flying all over the place, but he was happy...mainly because he was the cheapest SOB I've ever met. When we moved into our new club building in 1998, he went around and carefully pulled up
40 year old rusty rail spikes from what was left of our old layout and saved them in a jar for use on the new layout.
Paul A. Cutler III
************* Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
Why do you bother to get into these ridiculous exchanges with Flynn? He is either a troll or else he has some serious personality problems, one or the other. Putting him in a killfile is the best course of action. He is possessed with trying to convince the world that his wretched little DC train layout has all the features and advantages of DCC plus more, and that it cost less than any possible DCC collection of equipment. It is quite clear that his postings are those of someone who has an absolute minimum of knowledge and experience with DCC, and as such should be discounted and ignored. Flynn goes to inordinately ridiculous lengths to try to make his DC work as well as DCC, which is patently impossible except on a toy-like model railroad that runs clockwork type operations, or no operations at all. Have mercy on him and us. Ignore him. Please.
Typical rantings from a DCC zealot, attacking the messenger. I have been operating DCC layouts before the NMRA published their standard. Before that I was making my own command control decoders when I was using the Dynatrol system. My web page has the proof of what my railway was like. Note it had operating signals interlocked with the turnouts.
Terry Flynn
formatting link
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
Manually switched Cab control as you describe results in numerous button pushes which do not correspond with a prototype action, for example controlling a signal or a turnout. It also means the switch can be easily changed to another controller, in other words it's easy to make a mistake with unprototypical consequences.
No doubt.
I found it interesting to operate because what I described was the simplest train operation on the layout, an express train which does not stop. All other trains would stop at my station, and would be required to do different things, according to what type of train it was. One empty coal train for example would be required to go into the up yard, detach from its train, cross to the down yard, turn on the turntable, cross back to the up yard and put the brake van on the opposite end. Then it could return in the direction it came to go onto the colliery branch. It would enter the colliery and after running around the empty coal wagons, would pick up some full wagons and back onto its brake van. Then off it would go. While this was happening main line action was still in progress. It kept me interested in operations.
Terry Flynn
formatting link
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
Dear Mr. Crocker, You got brass ones (and I don't mean Overland) if you think you can just come into a group as an apparent newbie and tell people who have been here for quite a while (about 10 years for me) what they can and cannot do. According to a Google group search, you've only got three posts. At least we're on-topic. Why don't you do all of us a favor and try to get rid of the spam and off-topic crap off of r.m.r rather than hassling the first decent on-topic thread in months? Terry may be a crank, but at least he doesn't bring destructive topics to this place like religion and politics...unlike some of the knuckleheads around here. The fun part of debating Terry is trying to nail him down with facts. So far, I think I've been pretty successful this time.
Paul A. Cutler III
************* Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
You'll have to do a lot more explaining on this one.
Cab control has has nothing to do with switch control. The dispatcher dispatches, i.e. controls the switches. Engineers drive the trains, i.e. they need control of the block in order to operate. Or do your prototypes have dispatchers driving trains and engineers routing trains?
The temporary system consists of 8 blocks for each mainline loop. 4 trains run on each mainline loop. Each block has a simple inertia darlington pair controller, a relay and a track current detector based on a diode bridge and optocoupler. Logic is controlled by a PLC If the block ahead of a train is occupied a relay contact connects the inertia control voltage through a resister to ground, slowing down the train to a stop if necessary.
Terry Flynn
formatting link
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.