Re: DCC Controller Features

That's easy, get a Mac!

Gregory Procter wrote:

snip

Reply to
Dick Ganderton
Loading thread data ...

Did MS stop bundling Windoze with Macs?

Reply to
Gregory Procter

The reason I do it is because the prototype I model does it. What is so hard to understand? Jb

Reply to
J Barnstorf

For the last 498 of the 500 odd postings I've been _responding_. Yes, there is something I'm failing to understand and I keep asking for the answer and I never get the answer.

That's great - so when beginners ask, tell them that, don't just tell them that DCC is the only answer.

Of course that would be bullshit. You have demonstrated that you don't know what the control mechanism is that keeps your prototype's trains separated (it's not "the rules") so perhaps you've made my point for me.

It isn't when the prototype control mechanism for keeping trains clear of each other relates to controlling tracks.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

You're responses are an illustration of why it's a waste of time talking to you. Especially your summary. Any newbie that takes your advice gets what they deserve: years of time spent messing with wires and electronics as opposed to enjoying trains. Jb

Reply to
J Barnstorf

"...uncouple..."? Why?

Reply to
Gregory Procter

It's half the answer - when I was in the military they used to get pissed off too when I asked "why?" When my entire question was; "That would get me killed, why do you want me to get killed for no particular advantage to our side?" then I felt I was due an answer. If your prototype carries out an action that creates extra work and danger without any obvious advantage then, yes, I think you should find out why.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

Err, he esposed 7' gauge, but was forced by his own errors of logic to add the extra quarter inch later.

That's the one - my Great great (I forget how many) grand-mother was a Stephenson from a colliery so the rest goes without saying!

Reply to
Gregory Procter

So don't talk to me - all you've achieved is to bolster my prejudices, which can't be a good thing!

Ouch! The wires had to be there anyway.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

No you're the faulty prism and your' comment below is proof enough because...

you have distorted what I said completely. I said not one word about your prototype, all I did was display to you what I've seen in the field. I did make a statement similar to the one I am repeating now: You read what you believe not what I say then make some totally perpendicular statement which creates more confusion that enlighenment.

You've (and now I but not for long) have managed to keep this post going for that long. Are you in some competition in some other group to keep a thread going?

Bless you, thank you for your endorsement.

This is pure disinformation and propaganda to frighten off newbies. First of all programming CVs is easy and you're probably going to do it infrequently. Beginners need only reprogram the decoder ID and this is real easy. If you can read, you can reprogram a decoder.

'But there's no manual' - an excellent solution for a newbie. So if you don't know it, you're on your own spending your whole life trying to figure this stuff out, not running trains. DCC comes with manuals and tech support so at least the answer is nearby. Nor will learning this stuff teach you about railways (unless you're building actual railroad electrical components into your layout).

I firmly believe that you are doing more harm than help to this hobby. Your blind bias leaves no room for compromise or alternative. I wonder if this is what mid east peace negitiations are like.

Jb

Reply to
J Barnstorf

Hmmmm. From the above, I can see that your idea of what a modeler is and mine are very different. Pre-built scenes, I presume?

My old layout, before DCC was even available, took three whole hours to wire, and never had a problem that DCC wouldn't have been just as bad or worse, that being dirty track.

Enjoy trains? I'm in the process of scratch building a class A Climax, and when it's done, I think I might enjoy seeing it run a little more than watching an out of the box model. Especially pulling a string of scratch built, brass, skeleton logging cars.

Wiring isn't any big problem if you take one block at a time and make sure that block is working properly before you go on to the next. Trying to wire half a dozen and then check it is the recipe for scratching your head wondering what went wrong.

A model railroad is no different from any other project, you can only work on one part at a time. Finish that part, then think about the next.

I'm not really a fan of "plug and play", I'd rather understand what I'm doing. That's what a newbie would get if he ignores DCC until he understands what he wants to emulate.

Greybeard

Reply to
Greybeard

That is a bald faced lie. You are impossibly dense. Everyone who is still on this ridiculous thread is perfectly clear on what makes everything operate properly except you. The one who does not understand how prototype railroads operate safely is you. You think they operate the same way your slot car 3D video game operates. They do not. Not all railroads have signals. Those that ~do not~ still operate safely, because they have operating rules and procedures which are adhered to by all the operating personnel. Those that ~do~ have signals operate safely because they have rules and operating procedures which are adhered to by all the operating personnel. It really IS that simple.

Just what do YOU think the control mechanism is that keeps the trains separated? Some master control point that shuts off the current to the tracks? I don't think so. Only on a toy railroad.

EMD

Reply to
Ed M Davis

You said "...the prototype ..." Is my prototype not a part of "the prototype"?

What sort of enlightenment are you after?

No, are you?

So what are you going to learn about electrics or railways in linking a DCC controller to the track and setting the loco's ID? There's nothing there to frighten newbies because there's almost nothing there.

Hell, are you still eating raw eggs and plain bread just because they come from the supermarket that way? (If you tell me the instructions are on the wrapping I'm gonna scream)

Tech support? Where?

Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere; I firmly believe that you are doing more harm than help to this hobby by telling newbies that they should start with DCC and that analogue is dead.

OK, let's compromise - we'll tell newbies to buy a DCC controller and analogue loco. Your blind bias towards DCC leaves no room ...

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

And I've been plagued and cursed with having to make a living working with electronics almost all my life, which I despise. I would rather plug & play. I don't give a rat's ass why it works or how it works, and I don't want to build it if it has electrical crap in it. I hate messing with it. I enjoy many other things besides stringing some loathsome wormbag of wires from rotary switch to rotary switch ad infinitum, ad nauseum. It is bad enough to have to run the buss and all the feeds for DCC. Any more and I'd simply set the Goddamn thing on fire and watch it burn. Electronics is not my hobby. My hobby is operating a model railroad. EMD

Reply to
Ed M Davis

Block signals, or train orders, or staff systems or ...

Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

Why on earth would you stay in a job that you despise? Have you no respect for yourself?

Reply to
Gregory Procter

keeps your

my point for

Block signals, or train orders, or staff systems or......Also known as "Rules and operating procedures" Duh! "Obdurate" is putting it mildly.

EMD

Reply to
Ed M Davis

It's not that simple, and it has nothing to do with respect. It has to do with doing what I do well and making money at it. Besides I don't dislike the job, I love it. It's messing around with the electronics that I despise. I simply do not want to know anything about electronics beyond plug it in and turn it on. Unfortunately, I have to. There is another engineer who handles most of the electronics issues which I am gloriously happy to give to him. He enjoys it. We are a good pair. He can't design an automated assembly fixture and hates all the details associated with making machanical things fit and work.

Reply to
Ed M Davis

keeps your

my point for

Yep.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

Greybeard, I think you are getting the wrong idea from the paragraph I wrote. NOTE: Samples of my model building are near the end of my post...

GP conveyed the notion that spending a lot of time mucking with wiring was the appropriate thing to do to enjoy the hobby. He also states that DC is the only proper way to operate a layout. I was being sarcastic and trying to draw the point that not everybody thinks extra hours 'under' the benchwork is worth it. There are other aspects to the hobby which may be more enjoyable to some people so that is what they should spend most of their time on. I also implied that setting up DC can get tricky. There are whole books on doing wiring to be able to get sophistocated operation (read operational freedom). Adding automation and a computer interfaces is, in abstraction, exactly the same as DCC, only the implementation differs. Now that doesn't mean that DCC can't get complicated especially if you add signalling and reversing loops, etc. However GP preaches on as if DC were the only intellegent solution for train control. In this thread there also seems to be the inability to separate locomotive level operation vs traffic control level operation. So that's causing a lot of frustration or confusion ( I think Sir Toppam Hat would indicate "confusion and delay").

There are also the (in my opinion) completely moronic linkage between model operation and prototype safety concerns. Safety is not an issue on model railroads as nobody gets hurt colliding a train on either DC or DCC. ( That made me think of a train spanning two DC blocks with the locos in 1 block and the cars in the trailing block. Then a following train drives up into the rear block crashing into the rear of the leading train. So, DC can have collisions if the operators are not paying attention.) So using that argument to virtue either system is invalid. (this also goes back to the inability to differentiate between driver level or dispatcher level.

A person should be able to pursue whatever aspect of their HOBBY they wish to (please excuse the yell but I have to emphasize that this whole hobby is for the pleasure of the 'player'). This hobby should not become a job. So, if somebody wishes to ignore some aspects of the hobby then it is their right to do what pleases them. We can't learn all things about railroading/ model railroading at once so some things will have to wait. So skipping learning operations until later is not a bad thing. Presenting newbies with the attitude that there is a 'correct' way to do the hobby is counter-productive. Let people grow into the hobby to whatever level they want. Which is parallel to what you yourself said below. I must confess I don't realy understand what you meant by the last line of your post.

I agree with you partially on plug and play I enjoy building as well. I'm not a fan of RTR but I see the value and do buy some. I enjoy kits and scratchbuilding. If model railroading were just RTR I would have stayed in static models (armour, aircraft, ships). I enjoy building models, not building a control system. Why then should I be pariahed for not pursuing the complicated aspect of wiring when DCC would give me everything I need? No one has the right to judge me for how I play with my toys. And I never said either system was the only way to go.

I have created drawings for all 4 of CN's intermodal well cars and am working on drawings for CP's spine cars. I have kitbashed locos to match CN/CP and have scratchbuilt a number of cars...

formatting link
it was/will be very very rewarding seeing these cars in service on my layout.

Jb

Reply to
J Barnstorf

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.