Bad choice of club for you.
That has nothing to do with DC vs DCC.
even one of my locos,
If you convert some engines to DCC you can operate at the club. So you are talking about the cost of decoders and maybe a throttle. Of course, you have outlined a major problem with operating at the club which has nothing to do with DC vs DCC.
You are trading one basket of advantages and disadvantages for a different basket of advantages and disadvantages.
Paul
Well yes, that was a control system failure - there wasn't any control system to cope with potential human failings.
Humans are known to be prone to failings, so in areas where such failures are likely to be catastrophic we put in place control systems.
Regards, Greg.P.
Your ideas about what a modeller is are fairly evident from a number of comments you have made, likewise your remarks about "appliance operators" in relation to ham radio hobbyists. Perhaps you didn't intend them to do so, but those remarks came across as rather disparaging.
I get the sense that for you, the constuction of something, be it a radio or a model loco, is an end in itself. Which is great, but for others it is not a priority. Operating the radio or loco is.
A problem entirely unrelated to DCC per se. The problem is that you need to find a club with a DC layout.
Which seems to me to be a relative problem, not an absolute problem. If the cost of DCC was such a stumbling block, nobody would be buying it.
Universal picture for any club within a reasonable driving distance for me.
even one of my locos,
Why would I want to? Even the few diesels I have would be out of place on the club layout, Too old to fit in.
Bingo!
Greybeard
Three buttons. Recall, MU, +
Hardly a problem, except for you and Procter.
driver directly
Well, no we got that...what we are trying to understand is how you can claim that DCC cannot do what you do with DC.
In some cases, they are. In the case of amateur radio stations, the "operator" is supposed to also be the technician and engineer. Pulling a tranceiver out of the box, hooking up the mike and antenna does not fall in either category. The "technical" test for the general class license is now dumbed down to below what was required for a Novice 25 years ago, and the code requirement is now the same for all classes. I can see no reason to applaud this.
The construction of anything is only the labor required to see something like a perfectly operating loco, airplane, almost exactly reproduced scene, functioning as it should. Building anything without any intention of using it does not make sense.
The ability to think should never be replaced with the ability to buy, but far too many people think that it can happen successfully. Buying is fine, as long as you can do the thinking anyhow.
Greybeard
None within reasonable driving distance. Asking me to drive in any major city is unreasonable.
For those that have it, the cost obviously wasn't a problem. For others, it may be. As in, : Cost of setting new layout up with DCC - $150 to $180
Cost of using what I already have: $0.00
Which do you think will win?
Greybeard
driver directly
Ok, I'll accept that from you - Mark seems utterly bamboozled by the term "mechanisim".
I suppose one could do it with DCC by operating the decoder fitted locos in DC analogue mode. My staging yard, which is one end of the operation, consists of five parallel tracks in reverse loop form, each with various numbers of queue blocks. The outer track takes several longer trains while the inner track takes eight shorter trains. In it's present stage of control system development, each train gets sent to the first track with blocks long enough to receive it. As any train departs, the trains behind it move forward one by one to the space vacated ahead. There is nothing prototypical about this, it is purely a way to feed trains into the visible sections to represent the activity one would have seen if one were sitting beside the main line. I sure don't want to have the operating system address every loco by a decoder address. It would be quite possible to write a computer program to memorize the addresses, but it would be horribly time consuming and an utter waste of modelling time. From there, the double main line is a series of blocks, again trains advance with the signalling system, and for interest parts are bi-directional. This part can be operated over by individual drivers, automatically, or by a mix of drivers and automation. Operation by DCC would either be in DC mode or horrifically complicated in addressing individual decoders. (up to
5 locos per train)
Tough call - do you buy lotto tickets?
Perhaps, but that is also completely unrelated to DCC.
Is that all? Seems cheap to me.
In your case, $0.00.
In the case of the putative 12-year old you referred to earlier, who doesn't have any military surplus stuff in the ham radio junk box, and who doesn't have any background in DIY electronics, and who simply wants to run trains, I think that DCC will win.
command of the
Tom Cobley
driver directly
idea that the
Greg,
If those were the points you had been trying to make, this thread would have been a lot shorter.
But here's what you HAVE been saying:
"Since I operate alone, I have found that operating my 1920's German steam layout can be done more easily with DC electrical blocks and computer assistance than with DCC. I've managed to put together a system that mimics, to me, how this railway operated.
THEREFOR:
All DCC operators run there trains in slot car fashion and care nothing about prototypical operations. They bought DCC so they wouldn't have to worry about learning anything about prototype safe operating rules, mechanisms, etc."
Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"
They could, of course, have been brought in "light engine" by one crew from another yard/service area etc and be waiting to be uncoupled and then attached to their allocated trains.
Greg, I love watching you stir the Seps
Alan in beautiful Golden Bay, Western Oz, South 32.25.42, East 115.45.44 GMT+8 VK6 YAB ICQ 6581610 to reply, change oz to au in address
command of the
Uncle Tom Cobley
driver directly
that, but the
idea that the
Mike, A good sumation of this long thread. Howard, Pickens, SC
There is a better chance that the 12 YO will add rolling stock, maybe some scenery and track, and continue to use what came in the box. If he/she sticks with it, it will be several years before they will begin to look into more advanced operations, unless they have help from the parents, and don't discover the opposite sex first. At that time the decision of how complex they wish to take things will be made, but also at that time they may have the money to do it.
Greybeard
command of the
Uncle Tom Cobley
driver directly
led us into
that, but the
idea that the
Agreed - is anything there a hanging offense?
I never said "THEREFOR:" I have responded to comments and arguments which have brought forth comments which include parts of those sentences. For the "slot car fashion" I certainly did not say "all DCC operators". It's pretty obvious that some DCC operators do run their trains in slot car style. Anyone who, like Mark, think that loco drivers control the railway are operating in what I term slot car style.
In regard to the second sentence I think you will find that was an argument put forward by a DCC proponent and parroted back by me in the hope that that person would understand what they had written.
Sure, but the line of coupled locos was 8-10 long according to whoever brought it up as an anti DC example. That would be a good way to turn 40' boxcars into
50' boxcars! :-)
Perhaps I should pick on you Aussies, you argue more logically!
Regards, Greg.P.
Why do you persist in misrepresenting what I have written? I challenge you to quote one post of mine where I have claimed that drivers control the railway. I won't hold my breath waiting.
What I have repeatedly stated, and will repeat YET AGAIN, is that the ultimate responsibility for the safe operation of train is that of the driver. You can quibble and obfuscate as much as you like, but that's how it is on a real railway. Been there, done that. I don't have to think it, I know it from bitter personal experience.
And what I have repeatedly stated, is that drivers run the railway. I don't give a flying f*ck how many dispatchers, signallers, guards, signals, interlockings, blocks or "mechanisms" a railway has, all of these are there simply to support the driver in carrying out his job of running trains. That's what a railway does, in case you hadn't noticed - not provide a warm place for people to congregate between school and retirement. You can ditch the whole lot and trains can still run. Take away the drivers, and nothing turns a wheel, period.
If you still maintain after all the explanations and examples of North American operating practices that I and others have provided, and which I personally employ on my own layout, that I am operating slot-car fashion, then I can only say that I agree with Captain Handbrake's assessment of you.
Highly risible, Greg. Are you now claiming that North American railroads don't run trains with this number of locos?
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.