Question on several trains on one layout

Of course it doesn't make any sense - it's another of Greybeard's apple and celery comparisons, and a crap analogy to boot.

Machinists and toolmakers are two separate, and different trades, of so course the pay rates differ. Presumably in Greybeard's mind the CNC machinist is no better than the DCC operator, revelling in their supposed "ignorance". Whereas the toolmaker is as the noble DC user, assiduously figuring things out, thereby increasing the sum total of human knowledge and achievement.

Is it me, or does Greybeard have some wierd ideas?

Well, if you object to it, stop making that statement, since you're the only one it's coming from.

And when you do it in the real world (if you survive) you find your arse fired. So then, the thing is to NOT do it. Duhhhhhh........ DC is for dumbing down the operators and reducing them to slotcar drivers without credit for a brain. If someone carries you around all your life, why should you bother to learn to walk? Who needs bother to learn the rules of operation if its impossible to foul -up.?

LOL. Touche!

I like my $500- locos to remain upright and untouched by human hands - I don't see it as a driver's human right to be able to smash up my trains just because it is a possibility in real life! Oh, and I put the dead section _after_ the signal, not before it, so the driver will know he has boo-booed big time!

No, don't, because it takes away my autonomy as a driver. As I'm not modelling a railway that used AWS, ATS, Indusi or any other form of automatic train protection, it is both unprotypical and counter-intuitive.

need it, as it is an integral part of your layout design and operating style. And since we've clearly established that your style of operation is the exception amongst the great majority of posters to THIS newsgroup* ,it's not a valid argument for that majority.

*Predominantly US modellers modelling US railroads without ATP, from what I can gather. Please don't start up again about what the norm is in Europe, eh?

Shorting out your DCC power supply and thereby shutting down the entire layout/booster section has to be unprototypical too!

Certainly.

The neccessary wiring of a signal section is reasonably constant across all DC layouts. If the signal is protecting a trailing turnout the wiring will be much the same for DCC also.

If the signal is on a single stretch of track then there is no need for the signal to control the track power.

I haven't gone near "European modelling" here recently.

Greg.P. wrote: >

Absolutely, which is why I don't SPAD.

Yes.

Yes. However, you equate protection with controlling track power, whereas I don't.

There is no for any signal to control the track power, particularly for DCC.

Correct.

I'm not in a position to comment, as I am only familiar with EasyDCC and NCE docs. Neither of these will ever win any literary awards, but I was able to comprehend them and get things running. Perhaps I just have low expectations of documentation? :-)

It's not just me - he have wierd ideas.

Now that IS interesting - another instance of staff working on a US railroad, in addition to that on the Espee mentioned here previously.

What more can you tell us, CH?

Oh well, in that case he'd regard me as stupid.

Not only is it boring, but it is like the special effects, props and sets in a movie. It helps create the illusion of reality, but it isn't the main reason you pay out good money for cinema tickets.

No. Nor should you. Given his general tone, I'm surprised that Greybeard doesn't advocate learning to draw your own copper wire to wind your own armatures...

Agreed. I have often had the same discussion with people here regarding cricket. Even in the unlikely event that I ever develop any understanding of the game, there's no way I'm going to develop any interest in it. Likewise the arcana of DC control for multiple train operations.

DC must mean Digital Camera? DCC must be Digital Camera Confusion?

Ed Oates is right, DCC documentation is pretty bad but, not because Digital Cameras Confuse Greybeard.

Paul

;-)

You do have a point, but that hasn't happened to anyone here. Yet.

That'll work, provided the errant driver gets a round of razzing from all the others. That substitutes fairly well for gettting fired on a model railway.

CH

You don't model World War One aircraft???

You're trying to drag me back into describing my own specific wiring practices! Many proprietry turnouts on the market (eg Peco) have a switching function so that the rails extending beyond the frog are dead on the non-aligned track. The alternative of live rails allows you to trail _into_ the turnout with non-prototypical flashing, crackling and the shut-down of the DC controller or the DCC layout. That is not exactly prototypical and to my mind a loco unprototypically halting just before the turnout is preferable.

True, but _I_ chose to use the signal etc to link my DC controllers to the specific locomotive being controlled. (to minimise DC block switches and achieve "direct" loco control)

Regards, Greg.P.

don't see it as

possibility

It's happened to me - buy some $500- locos, like buttered toast on carpet those will be the ones involved in accidents!

So a siren and flashing light in a hand-held controller would be a useful addition? :-)

Regards, Greg.P.

don't see it as

possibility

will be the

We call it the "Jelly side down Syndrome" in these parts. Never fails.

As long as everyone in attendance gets notified, Yeah, I guess. In our operating group points are deducted which results in the loss of some degree of seniority, which, in turn, affects your ability to bid on the jobs you like to run. If you "get killed", you lose all seniority for six months, and can only take whatever jobs are left over after everyone else has chosen. Works for us..............

Some years ago I designed and built a number of "rough handling alarms" for a friend's railroad. They were essentially "rat traps" to catch operators who handled equipment roughly or tried to move it around by hand ( a no-no ) There was a battery inside with a trigger made of a piece of .4mm steel wire weighted on one end. If one disturbed the car by coupling to it in a rough manner, OR if one tried to pick it up, the trigger would activate a latching relay that, in turn, would connect the battery to a ~very~ loud peizo alarm. It would time out in 15 seconds and reset itself. By that time everyone in the place knew what you'd done and been caught at. Points were deducted. All the car bodies were interchangeable with non-alarm car frames such that there was no way to memorize which cars were booby trapped. This week it would be a boxcar, next week, a covered hopper, the next week, a reefer. We have had a lot of fun with that one, and it has done it's job of protecting the equipment fairly well.

CH

don't see it as

a possibility

those will be the

There was a scientific study of the problem released recentlty - apparently it's the height of the table and the rate of roll of the toast. If you double the height of the table or always put your toast "jelly side down" on the plate the toast will land jelly side up 90% of the time.

So how does that repair my $500- loco? :-)

Greg.P.

don't see it as

is a possibility

those will be the

it's the height of

down" on the plate

What clever fellows those acedemia are. Two completely useless solutions to the problem. Are you sure that this information was not actually released by Microsoft? It certainly has their "ring" to it.

Patience, Prudence, I'm still thinking about that one.

CH

As soon as you have electrical operated signals, they need to be wired, wether you use DC or DCC. You need to control the signals, DCC or DC. The complexity varies depending on what style of signals and the control method you chose. DCC does not make the operation or wiring in most of these cases simpler. In some cases DC is simpler to wire, the computer controlled automatic DC block layout can be one case.

implementation and

Which sweeping statement don't you like? DC is cheaper for example. If in the future all locomotives come with DCC decoders, then this statement will not hold. At the moment in time it's valid. Or is it the statement that if your layout uses signals to give authority to control trains DCC has minimal advantage. I am happy to back up both general statements.