Re: DCC Controller Features

True, just as blocking an analog DC layout is of no interest to anyone who's using DCC, and a thread about N-scale rolling stock is of no interest to an HO-er, a thread about Kato track is of no interest to someone who uses Atlas, etc., etc., and so forth. If universal interest were the criterion, there would be no legitimate topics.

Ah well, as you suggested, perhaps we'll just have to remain in disagreement. Happy RRing!

-- Bill McC.

Reply to
Bill McCutcheon
Loading thread data ...

preponderance

So is DC. Consider the QSI DC sound system, which also supports DCC. Then there are various commercial computer controlled DC systems.

And with DC the learning curve is shorter to get things going. No decoder programming required.

Classic pro DCC propaganda. I can get DC running for about the cost of 2 DCC decoders.

And most modellers don't want or need it.

QSI decoders can do this with their DC controller

Everything that DCC can do can be done with DC. However each method has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

I don't actually want 50 locos all chuffing and whooshing on my little layout, nor do I want to have to turn them off when they enter the first tunnel, back on when they come out and then back off again as they enter the hidden siding area!!!

DC wiring is just a small number of simple circuits repeated in parallel and or series.

Two DCC decoders won't get anything working!

I wanted it, but I'm not aware of it being provided with DCC!

Reply to
Gregory Procter

Ah, but this is rec.~models~.railroad. You'll be wanting misc.transport.rail.*

If DCC has nothing to do with the modeling of railways, then neither do 90% of the threads on this group.

Reply to
Cheery Littlebottom

But they are a ~way~ of modeling railways, are they not?

One might as well say that Stupid Americans are not model railways, but try it and see how far you get with that premise.

Reply to
Cheery Littlebottom

How many blocks can you wire with all the switches for $25.00?

And here's where you lose all credibility, Greg has an underlying motive, and I reckon you do too...

Reply to
Cheery Littlebottom

You're right. Have a lok at Digitrax.com for a signalling system that works equally well witth DC or DCC.

P.S. It doesn't require constant plugging and unplugging as you run your track^h^h^h^h^htrain...

Reply to
Cheery Littlebottom

So what is a DCC decoder a model of? ;-)

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

No, they are in fact two steps removed from modelling railways.

- Step one: a means of operating one's railway.

- step two: the means of configuring the means of operating one's model railway. Rather like discussions on railways operating staff pay rates, they are of little interest to those interested in MRs.

We need to draw a distinction here - yanks are not neccessarily born stupid, but there seems to be something in their culture that allows them to be selectively .... (note the use of the words "allows" and "selectively")

;-)

Regards, Greg.P..

Reply to
Gregory Procter

I switch my blocks with 78p (UK money - about US$1) relays driven by a very simple computer interface. (it could easily be a DCC interface and accessory module) A dozen cabs would require a total expenditure of about US$24-

I have the motive of encouraging those who ask to make a reasoned choice rather than blindly going for "state of the art" and finding the limitations the hard way.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

Yo!

One analog system of interest is the system by MERG in England (see:

formatting link
--- each block has its own analog controller (based on a voltage regulator)which connects to the blocks on either side. Block occupancy is built-in. This allows automatic control of several trains. In addition, shunting and local control is available at a flick of a switch. This is a very good system at shows. Obvioucly, it could be adapted to personal layouts.

David

Reply to
David P Harris

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:41:05 +1300, Gregory Procter wrote:

Or deciding to use DC and discovering even more limitations the hard way. Procter, you are a master of the specious argument. That is not a compliment, it is an indictment. I've been a model railroader for more years than many of the people posting here have been alive. In the sixties I was exposed to Astrac. It could control five locos independently. It was quite expensive and very limited, but the potential could be clearly seen. Later, in the early eighties, I was able to experience CTC 16, which later evolved into CTC 80. I thought they were wonderful. I discovered Digitrax DCC in 1995 and have never looked back. For me, DC and all its limitations, is a thing of the past. I can do so much more, so much easier and without spending hours figuring circuits and schematics, that there is no contest which one is the superior system. The only argument for the case of DC over DCC is that the user enjoys working with the DC system. Electrical and electronic machinations are a hobby unto themselves and have no place in my model railroad hobby. They are a necessary evil and no more. Greg Procter's comparison to the running of slot cars is simply another ridiculous exaggeration from the king of ridiculous conclusions and specious summations. I have had it both ways and there is no way I'd ever give up my DCC. My hobby is operating the trains, not controlling the current routing through the tracks.

-- Ed Davis snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net

Reply to
Ed M. Davis

Gregory Procter wrote: >

What is block control a model of?

Reply to
Mark Newton

Let's put this another way:

I operate a railway. (I have the option of operating a locomotive/train over my layout if I wish) You operate a locomotive/train over your layout. (DCC doesn't allow for operating a railway, unless you add ever increasing sums of money and technology)

The complexity required to operate a moderately complex _railway_ with DCC is prohibitive.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

Railway operating blocks.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

Reply to
Chuck Kimbrough

I'm not sure what you base that on.

The complexity of the system needed to "run a railway" is essentially the same whether it's DC or DCC. You have to keep track of the location of multiple trains, control their access into a specific area (block,) control signals, make sure two trains don't enter the same block, etc, etc. That's dispatching.

The method (DC or DCC) you use to actually control the engine is a separate issue altogether and in most ways irrelevant to the method of automated dispatching.

Whichever you use, you still need, at minimum, sensors in each block to locate trains, signals and a method to control them, and a way of sorting it all out (probably a computer.) The sensing, location and signaling methods can be identical.

One could even argue that since you'e dispatching system must also track which "cab" controls which block, it's an order of complexity above what would be needed for DCC.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" MRR Electronics Special Effects Lighting

formatting link

Reply to
Mike Tennent

The signalman operates the blocks. I thought the engineer sat in the drawing office and designed the locos.

If you just want to be the engine driver then that's fine for you (the origin of my "slot car driver" comment) however there are a multiple of tasks on the railway that are also interesting. I like the option of taking on a different role on my layout at times.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

a: train detection. You need to divide your layout into multiple electrical blocks with either system. DCC has the complication of added decoders.

"Dispatching" is a matter of passing trains from block to block while avoiding getting multiple trains in any block. ie you're controlling blocks. That's precisely what DC does. DCC on the other hand is about driving trains in spite of the blocks. You need an overlay of more complex technology to return DCC to the point DC starts from.

Exactly(ish) You've reverted to block wiring on any layout that has advanced beyond "slot car" operation. That leaves us with 'decoders' vs 'multiple pole cab switches' as far as direct loco control goes and 'complex individual train (decoder address) recognition' vs 'existing block' under analogue control.

Summarizing: DCC needs block wiring, decoders and complex individual train recognition. + PC programming. vs DC needs block wiring and multiple pole cab switches. + PCprogramming.

Assuming a given layout has an equal number of blocks under DC and DCC that balances out. That brings us down to the cost of decoders and individual train(decoder) recognition vs multiple pole cab switches.

Assuming your mid range DCC CU costs about the same as say four good quality analogue hand-held controllers. (bought one by one over time) the difference in cost comes down to the number of locos you have and the number of blocks. For me; 100 loco and 100 blocks.

100 x $25- = $2500- for DCC 100 x $8- = $800- for DC.

OK, the average MR might be 10 locos and 10 blocks and you might not do so well on block switch prices, but you still have the problem of your system recognising the individual trains to control them.

I already do that via a PC software version of progressive cab control via route control and signals.

(well, some honesty here - the layout track is laid, the signals have yet to be installed and the PC programme is a QBasic lash-up. The trains do obey the not yet installed signals :-)

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

Mostly nonsense about DCC.

Procter, it is glaringly obvious that you do not have the slightest idea about the realities of DCC. Apparently you are the only one who does not know that. If you enjoy using a DC/block control system, that's wonderful. You do not seem to know enough about DCC and how to use it to intelligently debate, or even discuss the subject. You would be miles ahead to leave the defense of DC VS DCC to Terry Flynn. He does quite well on his own. Your input simply muddles things even more.

-- Ed Davis snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net

Reply to
Ed M. Davis

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.