Re: DCC Controller Features

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:28:11 UTC, Gregory Procter wrote: 2000

I have photographs showing 6, 7, 8 and 9 units on the head end. Six does not seem at all uncommon.

It's Terry Bickle's layout.

The US system of train order is less safe than the systems used by our railway up until recently, when such systems have been introduced. Back to the unsafe days before the invention of the signal and block working. However our automatic block working is very similar to US systems, often using US designed and imported equipment. The argument about the NZ accident in this thread is an example of an accident under the new less safe US style train order systems which is less likely to happen under staff or automatic block working.

Oh?

I thought it was to entertain the anoraks.

In article snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz, Gregory Procter at snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz wrote on 1/4/05 17:08:

Here is where your objection collapses, because you're forgetting an important component of the DCC protocols.

Where the decoder is concerned, if the loco is placed in a DC environment, the decoder will let the engine run as normally. (In fact, it's possible to operate one "undecodered" loco on a DCC-equipped layout.)

What does that mean? Well, you could work on equipping your fleet over time, prior to buying a specific DCC system. You could, for example, equip two locos per month: at US$17 per decoder, that's only US$34 a month in DCC investment. Then, when you have a suitable number of locos so equipped, you can then look for a system that meets your needs. In your case, you state that you need thirty locos at minimum to operate the layout as intended, so you may want to equip, say, 35 locos before plunking down your money in a DCC system.

This is where DCC has an advantage, however slight.

The tracks are energized not with direct current, as you have, but with alternating current, atop which is superimposed the DCC signal. While DCC won't solve the electrical issues arising from situations like reversing loops, it does have the benefit of simplifying your wiring. How can that be a disadvantage or drawback? Locating electrical problems is made much easier, since you don't have to trace as many wires to find the source of a problem, whether it's a loose wire or short.

In one sense, you're correct, because DCC does introduce an element of complexity to be able to have detection, and, I believe, working lineside signals, and so forth. However, not being knowledgeable about such matters, I cannot comment thereon, except to say there are solutions, even commercially available ones. It's just a matter of willingness to look around.

Dieter Zakas

In article snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz, Gregory Procter at snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz wrote on 1/13/05 13:55:

The engineers with whom I've worked would NEVER say they "drive" a loco. However, they DO "run" or "operate" one.

The term, as used in North America, arose from the fitting of a steam engine (boiler and related appliances) to a carriage suitable for operation on a track. Thus the term "engineer."

Greg, you're talking to someone who has practical experience in railroading (can you legitimately make the same claim?) for a living, and of my time on the railroad, about half has been spent in road service, taking trains to other terminals. I know whereof I speak. I also know how the landscape changes.

Dieter

What have ~you~ been reading?

The "E" is a registerd professional, the "e" is a boiler tender who is misnamed.

Perhaps, though without citations, I have little confidence in your conclusion.

Well, no, because in N.A. the driver is allowed to determine where he is, instead of assuming he knows where in a vast featureless landscape he might be...

Ok.

Err, "ETA" has quite a different meaning and we won't even go near "ETD"!

:-)

If one wants to make use of the 'brake to zero on DC' facility that would be required for blind block working, the loco will not operate normally on DC. What point is there in a DCC decodered loco operating in DC mode?

Sure - I have the burned out motor to prove that system. It's possibly ok with large motored, metal framed locos, but I run numerous small motored locos which overheat very quickly.

What is this DCC system going to achieve for me? I'm interested in features such as speed mapping and EMF control, but those decoders cost considerably more than US$17- I already have direct control of my trains, and basic constant lights. I would certainly like to gain individual control of locos when setting up and breaking MUs. I've asked numerous times on various ngs and direct to manufactures if those features can work on DC analogue but my questions are either ignored or are argued against.

My reversing loops and sections work as simply as is possible - DCC either works the same way or I have to add complex and expensive modules to do the same job. Try to picture three alternating direction cross-overs on double track leading to a reversing loop. It's quite possible to have three trains crossing over three of the four reversing points at the same moment - I'm not sure what the reversing modules would make of that. I assume they would cascade.

There wouldn't be many less wires because each block requires total and two point detection.

I know there are solutions, but as I've said before, DCC takes one from (and here I get into language trouble) block control of individual trains to direct control of individual locomotives by the aplication of modular technology. One then has to overlay another level of technology to revert the system to block control of individual trains.

I've never met an engineer who drives, runs or operates a loco. (actually, that's exactly not true because a good friend of mine who was the NZR south island development engineer has a steam ticket and drives for the local preservation society :-) They are known as 'Locomotive Drivers' here, so they drive locos.

I don't dispute that - you know New Zealand conditions?

alternating current, atop which is superimposed the DCC signal.< Actually DCC is the AC signal and is not superimposed on anything. It just happens to be a square wave AC signal.

FM SW AC?

In article snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz, Gregory Procter at snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz wrote on 1/14/05 0:04:

Think of a club setting, for example.

Suppose the club runs on DC, yet your layout is DCC (work with me on this, okay?) Now, you offer to bring some of your locos to the club. The decoder, not detecting a DCC signal, will "play dumb" and the loco will behave like a traditional DC-powered model. That's the beauty of the protocol.

Part of that problem is that the locos, whose motors are direct current, are in an environment of alternating current.

You answered your own question when you said, "I would certainly like to gain individual control of locos when setting up and breaking MUs." DCC allows "consisting," which lets you program two or more locos to accept and respond to a common address.

With respect to the features you cite, yes, they're going to cost more. However, look at it this way: the "bare bones" decoders are like the economobile one could drive to get from Point A to Point B. The extra features you desire are extra-cost options, so you'd expect to pay for them. The basic decoder will get you started for the least cost, and eventually you could upgrade as time and money permit.

Because it's easier to implement those features in DCC, which is where the hoby is heading.

I never claimed that DCC would simplify such things. That's important to understand.

In a way, I agree with you that every new technology brings with it new problems and/or challenges. Sometimes, in the case of solving certain problems, it creates others. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways.

Explain what you mean by "total and two point detection."

Look at what I said about dealing with reversing loops: every new technology

- which DCC is - solves some problems, but at the same time, introduces new ones. Such is life.

Dieter Zakas

Sounds like the Chicago Great Western

6 covered wagons was a nor lashup. More were not that unualual. There is even a book "6 Units to Sycamore" about this.

howard

OK.

I'm fine with that, but as I said, my decoders would be set in the "brake on DC" mode and there are no clubs inside 2 hours drive of me. (well, I worked with you for a moment ;-)

I know the problem and rejected the mode before the NMRA noticed DCC.

It becomes a trade-off. Do I want that individual control enough to accept the negatives associated with block control? Answer: No. Do I want the lighting control enough to ... Answer: I can get constant lighting other ways. At that point, the cost becomes irrelevant, for the moment.

I don't want to start at the "bare bones" level because the advantages don't outweigh the disadvantages _and_ the cost becomes a major factor.

In the case of staging yard operation - probably the most common form of operating world-wide - DCC makes implementation more difficult. DCC dumbs down the hobby.

Quote: "Because it's easier to implement those features in DCC, which is where the hoby is heading." "... easier to implement ..." and "... simplify ..." seem to me to be pretty much the same thing.

That is why I stand by the concept that analogue control still has a place in the hobby and that the moment when one should chose DCC is when one has sufficient experience to decide which one best suits ones style of operation.

Total = current detection to detect trains/rolling stock within a block. Two points of detection to detect direction of operation and to implement braking and to bring the train to a complete halt at a specific point. (required in staging yards)

It doesn't take much technical knowledge to add point motor switches (or a parallel relay) to reverse polarity in a loop or crossover and the cost is very low in comparison to the DCC modules. If I were to go with the slow change-over as you suggested earlier, the electro-mechanical method of switching would allow me to keep operating my DC locos whereas the DCC module system would remove that option.

As I said elsewhere, my method allows DCC operation simply by switching DCC in as an additional cab, so I can use top end DCC decoders if I feel the urge.

Regards, Greg.P.

And umpteen i/o boards to control the relays ( I think you said they were $35 each - 8 relays per board? ) and an expensive computer to control the i/o boards --- and hours and hours writing the programme to control the timetable.

I congratulate you on your ability to do it, you have a complicated, highly specialised automated model railway, far from the average. Nothing like I want to do

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