Re: Number of electrical blocks?


> >I know I am making this harder than it is, but what determining factor(s?)
> >is used when deciding on the number of blocks for wiring a new layout? >
> Whether you are running DCC or not.
>
> DCC = 1 block, ( with some isolating sections, which are normally
> permanently connected, for troublefinding only ) Two bus wires for > power.
> Drive your train
>
> versus
Only true for small layouts. If you do not use electrical blocks for large
layouts when you get a fault the hole lot shuts down, much harder to find
out the problem.
DC/analogue = many blocks and miles of wire back to the control
> panel, many switches to operate to send power to the block, hoping
> that your train is in that block and that you have remembered to
> switch in the next block to keep the train moving.
>
Same as a large DCC layout. DC has extra wiring normally, but not that much
if you use modern electronics.
DC is too much hassle and timeconsuming to wire a new layout as
> well more expensive for materials, much more expensive if time is > priced.
>
DC is much cheaper in cost. As far as time is concerned when you include the
time it takes to install decoders in to locomotives the time difference is
minimal.
Decoders expensive? No At about $16US/$30Oz they are only
> about 15% or less of a new loco's price and they do so much more.
These decoders do not have back EMF and therefore produce poor running
compared to cheap DC controllers I use.
How can you have lights on stationary loco's etc. using DC without
> batteries, switches & charging circuits ? Lots of $$$$ to do it.
Use high frequency and a decoupling capacitor for each carriage, fairly
cheap or use a DC offset of about 1.5V, and use series diodes in your
locomotives to compensate for the DC offset. Some locomotives come with this
'constant lighting feature' RTR. Minimal cost. Less cost compared to a DCC
decoder.
DCC is built in, no extra cost.
>
Rubbish, no Australian model for example has a DCC decoder installed RTR.
DC died 10 years ago, do not try to exhume it.
>
DC is here to stay and is advancing. Already we now have DC automatic block
systems using the same control software that is used for DCC. When I go
Australia's largest model railway convention there will be a talk on DCC and
a separate talk on DC progressive block control.
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
Reply to
Terry Flynn
Loading thread data ...
A simple automatic task on my DC layout only requires a detector and a stoping relay, I use a relay for logic but this could be done the modern way using a simple integrated circuit. The same can be done using DCC but you need to set your DCC decoder so it responds to stop when the DCC signal is removed. I don't have to worry about such DCC programming. The DC system is simple and is easier to fault find as one does not have to worry about decoders in locomotives.
Reply to
Terry Flynn
blocks to achieve that.
main block switch (relay)
I count lots more button pushes for DCC compared to DC. For DCC Select loco1, enter 4 digit code press enter Select loco 2, enter 4 digit code press enter Select loco 3, enter 4 digit code press enter Select loco 4, enter 4 digit code press enter
About 24 button pushes for DCC compared to the 5 for DC. So much for easier operations using DCC.
Reply to
Terry Flynn
Hey Terry, I bet you've got brown eyes...
Jeff Sc. Optimist, Ga.
Reply to
crosstie
"high frequency" what?
Reply to
Paul Newhouse
And you can do this anywhere on you layout ... right?
Paul
Reply to
Paul Newhouse
High frequency whining!
Reply to
Mark Newton
I want to know why you dwell on the number of button pushes. Who cares how many button pushes one must make? Besides that, you are always wrong about the number of button pushes you must make with the DCC system. Even if you weren't you are not comparing like things. You have to make hundreds- or thousands- of times more button pushes with a keyboard than you do with a pen or pencil; So much for easier operations using keyboard. Try writing to this newsgroup with a pen. Try writing anything these days with a pen or pencil and it will take you many times longer and much more work than with a keyboard. You can't edit like you can with a keyboard and you can't spell check like you can with a keyboard. Pens and pencils have their place. Keyboards have their place too.......Now;
I wouldn't care if you were always correct. But you are not. You have not kept pace with DCC and you are not knowledgeable about it and its diversity and finer points. You know enough to be dangerous.
You have every right to champion the cause of the Direct Current / Manual Control method of operating a model railway. There are instances where DC is actually a better choice than DCC. No one is going to argue that with you. YOU, on the other hand need to stop incessantly arguing that DC is the better system in all cases. It is most demonstrably not. It is better for you because you want it to be. I will never go back to DC as long as it is possible to have DCC. Hang the expense, hang the number of times I have to push buttons. I never again have to wire throttle and block controls. I divide the railroad into electrical zones- just like the zones in your house- with a circuit breaker in each zone and I never have to flip another switch or sequence another block or any of a multitude of things required to operate on a pure DC model railway. It is all so beautifully clean and simple. The DCC system does everything for me. All I have to do is drive the train and obey the signals. This is all I want to do. I absolutely loathe doing the electrical work associated with a large, complex Direct Current model railway. I only ever did it because I had no choice. Now I have a choice. For me, it's to hell with Direct Curent, long live Digital Command Control. Your Mileage May Vary.
......................................F>
Reply to
Froggy
No, it doesn't. He knows full well what it takes to operate a DC model railway. It's the DCC part where he falls down. DCC is, even yet, an emerging technology. Direct Current is an old, mature technology. New concepts are not being made in the field of Direct Current control of model railways. You cannot make value judgements of a system that is still developing, based on archaic and erroneous information. You must get your facts straight AND current. What was DCC in 1994 is in the dust bin today. The basic philosophy has endured, but the actual doing of the thing is quite different than it was nine years ago.
It is as if he is refusing to use a computer, which refusal is based on the fact that the Commodore 64 is an inferior, overly complex machine with limited capability. This is true. There are no more Commodore 64s for sale. The computer world has gone light-years beyond what were just dreams in those days twenty years ago.
The world of DCC is experiencing the same thing now, and will continue to so do for several years yet.
There is nothing at all wrong with choosing to use DC as a control system. There is a lot wrong with claiming that DC is easier to use and less complex than DCC, or even that it can do everything that DCC can do. These assertions are patently false.
.............F>
Reply to
Froggy
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Froggy. As far as DCC is concerned, it only took us five minutes of operating on a DCC powered layout to decide that this was the way we wanted to go. And that was nearly three years ago. When we dismantled our previous layout prior to moving, we agreed that whatever we built next would be optimised from the outset for DCC. In that time the price has decreased in real terms, and the features and capabilities of even entry level systems have improved remarkably.
Yes, they are - but that's Terry all over. You should be accustomed to him doing it by now!
But in the long run, I don't believe that Terry, or anyone else, can hinder or obstruct the acceptance of DCC by being less than truthfull about it. As others have noted, once you have tried DCC, it's highly unlikely that you'll settle for anything less.
What Terry, and others like him, need to realise is that the embrace of DCC does not imply any criticism or "value judgement" of DC, or it's adherents. It is merely another way of enjoying the hobby.
All the best,
Mark.
Reply to
Mark Newton
Not so. There are just as many fanatics on the DCC side as there are on the DC side :-).
But I agree that circumstances dictate the choice.
Reply to
Larry Blanchard
Of course Terry can, he has 10 special portable electrical blocks - AKA fingers 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
Reply to
alan200
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 03:49:27 UTC, Froggy wrote: 2000
Froggy,
You echo my sentiments completely. I retain some dc capability because I have some brass steamers that have not been converted and may never be. Conversion between dc and dcc requires that I unplug my command station/booster from the power buss and plug in the Controlmaster 20. This is a monumental task requiring some 15-20 seconds. DC cannot come close to doing what DCC can on my modules because I didn't set them up that way. The simple fact is that DCC does not require the complexity in wiring and control to do complex tasks.
Reply to
Ernie Fisch
More like 12!
Mark.
Reply to
Mark Newton
This is truly one of the greatest selling points of any control system. With DCC you can do everything with only two wires connected to the track. I know this is a very basic and simple way to operate, but it most certainly can be done. You can daisy-chain some plug-in modules using the plugs and cables that come with them, connect the plug to the CPU/power supply and run two wires from there to the railroad. Any number of operators may then independently control any number of locos anywhere on the railroad. You absolutely, positively, most profoundly cannot do that with any form of direct current control system. While you may not want to literally do that (then again, maybe you would) The ability to do almost anything you want without restriction AND without a PE in electrical engineering, is what's important here. The wiring is only as complex as you wish it to be. You control it; it does not control you.
Cheers.....................F>
Reply to
Froggy
One only needs two wires to the track for analogue control also!
Reply to
Gregory Procter
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:30:14 UTC, Froggy wrote: 2000
Even with a PE it is a pain.
And with loconet it is even simpler.
Reply to
Ernie Fisch
You're trolling here Gary. You know that is not true. You can control only one locomotive if you run only two wires to the track in a DC environment. Everyone knows that, why do you try to say different?
.............F>
Reply to
Froggy
Even simpler than what exactly?
Make friends in the hobby. Keith Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Reply to
Keith Norgrove
The advert for MRC on the back of the August MR says you can control 24 locos, they all do the same thging of course but you control them.
Make friends in the hobby. Keith Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Reply to
Keith Norgrove

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.