Which no one is denying.
BUT, and this is a big but, that's the only case in which DC and DCC wiring will be of similar levels of complexity for a given layout.
As soon as you make a comparison between a DC and DCC layout WITHOUT ELECTRICALLY OPERATED SIGNALS, which is what just about every other poster bar yourself has been talking about, the DC layout will require more wiring of greater complexity than the DCC layout. At which point your "argument" falls down in a screaming heap.
Even with signalling it still falls down, because the signal system stands alone and is not integrated into the train control system. Like on an actual railroad, it is the drivers' responsibility to comply with signal indications. The track current does not do it for him. Therefore: The basic, underlying train control system is STILL simpler and easier to engineer than the "much better and cheaper" DC/block/cab system.
FWIW, I can imagine that only four people are still reading this thread. It needs to be euthanized.
Not any more. When I did, I was mainly interested in two-seaters, and the aircraft of the Central Powers. But that's another story! :-)
In this context, SPAD is Signal Passed At Danger.
Not really, just pointing how our wiring and operating methods differ.
Why didn't you just say that?
You need some form of detection if you're going to have signals. If the rail breaks and power feeds are there, why not include an on/off switch in the circuit? It would be useful with DCC for fault finding and will cost you only $1- to $2-
Regards, Greg.P.
. . .
The Douglas Skyraider was initially designated AD under the Navy system of type, number and manufacturer(AD = Attack, Douglas - the first such design by that company, who later made the A4D Skyhawk*; for another example the WW II Corsair from Chance-Vought was designated F4U, fighter number 4 from Vought.
When the DoD went to a common designator system to satisfy some anal compulsion of McNamara's whiz kids, the A-4 kept it's number, but the AD became the A-1. Th letters AD, and the status of prop plane in a jet war, led to the nickname "Spad" - some Spad pilots even took to wearing white scarves. There wasn't a better plane to have for RESCAP: they could fishtail a little and fly wing on a helo, seeing what we saw, instead of flying moving circles around us like the A-4s, A-6s or F-4s; and they had lots more ammunition, endurance, and damage resistance than any of those jets.
Sorry, Greg, force of habit. The term gets bandied around at work all the time. Everyone is doing it, apparently! :-(
Yes, I can see why you might wish to do this, but I want to keep the control/track power separate from the signalling. As it stands, the only signalling I'll have will represent manual block, so I'm leaning towards mechanical operation using a miniature lever frame.
There are plenty of US layouts using CTC and other signal methods. There are plenty of US prototypes that require a layout using signals. There are US companies who can provide RTR DC systems that do it all, no DCC required expert. The majority still use DC.
I expect simple phrases to be beyond you. It's your problem.
So far you cannot provide evidence to suggest otherwise. Automatic signalling and computer train control, DC is still ahead of DCC.
Just like when operating DC under manual control expert. So far you have no big DCC advantage. The above is no advantage. To make a comparison you need to be familiar with both systems expert.
It's you Mark. If you are going to complain about Grey beards comparison, get your facts right. A toolmaker in NSW does the same trade as a machinist. The toolmaker does an extra year of studies.
No difference to DC expert. No signals on my layout control track voltage. No need, but it's an option with advantages.
......Snip..........
No offense T. F., but you're about three weeks late on these responses. The thread is dead and we've all moved on to other things. It might have been a better idea to have let the thing stay dead, eh what? Shall we?
CH.
Nahh He has just come back from Hol's. He has to continue his flames from where he has left them.
Sorry mate, but the fire's out and the flames are gone. This dingo is dead.
CH
I agree with you on this one mate.
Yawn. Still flogging this dead horse? CTC is not ATP, nor are signals. Now be a good chap, and piss off.
I fully agree with you. We should avoid poor wiring if we want our railways to run reliably. Unfortunately many of us weaken, and take the old short cut of lets make some temporary wiring to test things and get models running quicker. I am still finding temporary wiring on my layout.
Change your mind. It's taken some time.
Wrong again expert. Singe cab small DC layouts only have 2 wires to the track. If you read Model railroader you would have come across some examples.
Wrong again expert. There are a number of posters who use electrically operated signals, the most common method of signal actuation on model railways. As usual my statement is correct, and you simply try to move the goal posts.
On my simple cheaper DC system the driver controls the train, your signal argument is simply untrue. The driver on my system is still responsible and in control of the speed and direction of the train.
What happened to train order? Greg is keeping track power separate from signalling, it would not work otherwise expert.
TT/TO is a set of operating rules and procedures, not a signalling system.
One would have thought a tall poppy would know the difference...
*Slow-working dope.Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required