then DCC is for you. If your prototype is otherwise then analogue may be better suited to your needs.
In your description, the "section" is the same as the term "block" as I use it: a length of track on which only one train at a time can have access (and which can only be transited in one direction)
Your description does serve to clarify the question - my point really relates to the number of trains per operator. With one (or two) per driver, with multiple drivers, DCC is probably ideal, but individual loco control becomes pointless if there are larger numbers of trains operating per driver. Individual loco control via DCC also becomes more complex when significant numbers of blocks are hidden from the drivers.
Maybe you can. So can I. But that's not the point. I am going to put the decoder in the locomotive unit anyway, whether I M-U it with another one or not. I've already used the decoder to eliminate electrical control block, or cab control wiring, so you can't count it again to weigh against sub-block wiring. I am only going to install it one time and I am only going to install one decoder in a locomotive unit. I don't have to do any milling to install decoders, so that is not an issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with sub-blocks. They work perfectly well. They are, however, another manifestation of the limitations and unnecessary complexity of any system that controls the current to the tracks rather than controlling the individual locomotive units. Even the simplest and most regimented model railway can operate more realistically when the individual locomotive units are independently controlled as are their prototypes in the real world.
It was the reverse of the point I was arguing against.
The reverse holds for me - I don't need DCC decoders.
If one's prototype uses blocks then one must wire for block detection, whether one uses analogue or DCC. The traction current control relay is a simple adjunct to that wiring.
I just did!.
I sure as hell am not going to keep updating my block wiring - however, had I gone fully DCC I would be on my third loco roster upgrade at present.
Of course it is - just every loco built longer than ten years ago has no provision for decoders. Thats about 100 of my roster.
I'm not fussed as they don't match prototype operation.
True.
True.
How can I individually control a dozen locos on a small layout where half the track is hidden? To represent the prototype I need all those trains operating and interacting. I'm modelling a RAILWAY, not just running a single train through a section of countryside.
Now we're full circle - I want EMF feedback, speed mapping, some basic lighting control and a traction switch on/switch of function in a decoder operating on analogue. It would be reasonably easy to switch a DCC command burst into the track current for the fraction of a second to switch on/off lights and traction function. With that in selected locos, (bankers, switchers) I would have every feature that DCC currently offers without my dreaded sub-block relays.
For now, I have plenty to keep me occupied with the layout and with rolling stock building, so the "analogue decoder" project has to wait.
It's interesting that you keep coming back to this, since you have never clearly or convincingly explained why DCC cannot be used in conjunction with block working.
Or else it's not complicated enough...apparently he can get bits and pieces of old telephone exchanges, and cobble up a system that works well enough for him...however, for those of us whose time ~is~ worth something, the ease of starting out with DCC is readily apparent.
Except where there are automatic overrides, or where the train is under automatic train control. Not all trains have drivers.
One limitation is because DCC uses serial communications, the maximum number of radio control controllers is limited, the same for controllers generally, though the maximum limit is sufficient for most model railways. However there can be delays in control as you get to the limit of the system. Not a problem with DC block control. The limit is the layout size. Another limitation is the ease in which one can foul turnouts using DCC causing a short circuit. Usually with DC this is avoided if turnout power routing is used. Consisting is another limiting area.
track (in either
And DC control.
There is no
Just like manually switched DC block control. No computer, no array of buttons to worry about using my DC block system.
Clearly your old DC system was not the best for your style of layout .Cab control, a US fashion, which even I thought was the way to go was the hard way, just like the NMRA track and wheel standards.
control, separate from
It no easier to implement compared to DC, and has extra problems DC doesn't have to worry about.
For both DC and DCC, reverse loops and turnout frogs come to mind.
stock three tracks
without reference to
With DC I also operate the train. If you don't operate your track with DCC your layout does not have any tournouts.
Rubbish, I've seen many of the locations you refer to.The only example is a engine pushing a dead one. Otherwise separate tracks or one locomotive is stationary.
An unsafe practice which I have not seen in my travels.
No. Never seen it.
No.
Greg observes what actually happens. You often don't.
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.