Re: Number of electrical blocks?

wrote:

factor(s?)
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.

Same as a large DCC layout. DC has extra wiring normally, but not that much if you use modern electronics.

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.

These decoders do not have back EMF and therefore produce poor running compared to cheap DC controllers I use.

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.

Rubbish, no Australian model for example has a DCC decoder installed RTR.

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.

GMT+8
--
Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards go to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

--
Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards go to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards go to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hey Terry, I bet you've got brown eyes...
Jeff Sc. Optimist, Ga.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 "Terry Flynn" wrote:

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>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Froggy wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The entry level systems are still much dearer compared to comparable DC systems. For the price of a entry level DCC system, I have been able to install a 3 cab DC system, expandable to 5 cabs, with full signal and point interlocking, in which all trains have back EMF control. How many locomotives I can have is determined by the size of my layout, not how many decoders I have installed.

Both of you need to get up to speed with current DC developments. Not all DC layouts use Cab Control with toggle switches which is 1940's ? technology.

I have tried it, and I use DC. DC is here to stay. As for your assertion I am not being truthful, identify the untruths, prove me wrong. Again, when it comes to Mark Newton, he is quick to call someone untruthful, but never can back up his claims with any facts. Describe your layout mark, and how you operate. It will be clear to readers his layout does not use signals. He is not even modelling a railway, If we believe his previous posts, just a tram system. Nothing like the prototype I model. We are waiting for the detail. I will continue to operate my layout in a prototypical manner using DC and operating signals. It cost me less money and was no more effort to do compared to DCC.
Terry Flynn
For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Terry Flynn wrote:

And also:

I used to think that our indefatigable defender of DC was simply motivated by malice and spite in equal measure. But after reading these two sour diatribes a few times, I realised that, over and above anything else that Terry may be, he is a snob. And it is this snobbery that keeps him going, like some bombastic incarnation of the Energizer Bunny.
Terry's snobbery manifests itself in his contempt for the ease with which DCC users, with little or no electronics expertise, can do things that his fantastically complicated DC control system cannot. He worked for years to develop this electromechanical marvel, to perfect its operation, and now any pleb with enough money can buy a system off the shelf that far outstrips the capabilities of his - and he doesn't like it one bit.
He also has a fair bit of scorn for anyone who chooses a prototype with safeworking systems that differ from those of his beloved second-rate colonial railway. Hence the snide remark about me modelling "just a tram system". And even worse, one without signals!!! As is usually the case, he is incorrect. The NSW tramways were part of the railway organisation for many years, and used safeworking and signalling largely consistant with railway practice.
We are continually told that one can only operate a NSWGR layout "prototypically" by using DC, with the signalling interlocked with the track power. This is complete and utter bullshit. Many Australian modellers who also model the NSWGR - including a significant number of Terry's mates - use DCC, and do so without any compromise or unprototypical operating methods. The real reason that Terry makes this claim is simple snobbery - a desire to elevate his status amongst his modelling peers. But whereas in the past people might be impressed by his virtuosity, the advent of DCC has rendered his efforts and achievements largely obsolete.
I take back what I wrote earlier, that the embrace of DCC does not imply any criticism or "value judgement" of DC, or it's adherents.
Terry is a dinosaur, and his version of DC is a relic of the past.
Mark Newton.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Energizer Bunny has made it to Oz?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8 Jul 2003 15:46:22 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (MrRathburne) wrote:

I think that Mark and Terry do not get along well. At least when it comes to their trains. We should avoid upsetting them <G> ...............F>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (MrRathburne) wrote in message

No surprise there since he just keeps going, and going, and . . . <lol>
Paul - "The CB&Q Guy"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@theramp.net (Paul K - The CB&Q Guy) wrote:

which one?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As he usually does.... :-)

Have pity on the poor boy. He either can't afford or is completely clueless about DCC, which is why he puts it down. Personally, I go with DC, but only because I can neither afford it, nor do I have the time to mount decoders in all my locos, most of which predate DCC by decades... :-). Otherwise, my reaction to the DCC folks consists mostly of turning slightly green with envy when the subject comes up.
Terry has the typical reactions of a person with a severe inferiority complex. He puts down others for things he would like to be able to do himself. And I do believe there's a certain amount of juvenile trolling in his diatribes. He just likes to insult people, especially those half a world away. Trolls are best ignored.
--
Gary M. Collins
============================================
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gary, you might like to pop across to aus.rail and look at the posts from Mark Newton. See who does the insulting instead of discussing the subject. I use DCC on friends layouts, and have in the past operated my layout for a number of years using the Dynatrol Command Control system. I also have formal electrical and mechanical engineering training. So I know exactly what I am talking about, unlike Mark Newton, who resorts to insults, as he is incapable of technical argument on the subject of DC or DCC.
--
Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards go to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Terry Flynn wrote:

Terry Flynn does.

Nah, nothing elitist about <that> attitude...

Your pronouncements suggest otherwise...

What is there to argue? I prefer DCC to DC, there's no technical argument needed or wanted. Mind you, actual <technical argument> from Terry is largely ignored in favour of "I'm right, you're not qualified to comment" diatribes. See above.
Mark Newton.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

wow, talk about elitism....
Dave.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Mitton

No, talk about insulting. If I was being elitist, I'd say;
"Terry is a dinosaur, his version of DC is a relic of the past, and all superior modellers use DCC."
I characterise Terry's position as elitist because of his insistence on portraying DCC users as fools, knaves, dupes of the NMRA, and most of all, electronic illiterates.
If you familiarise yourself with Terry's rantings on this, and other subjects, you'll see that his elitism is a common theme.
Mark Newton.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Again Mark Newton tell lies about what I have said to cover up his own inability to wire a simple DC layout. There is only one DCC user I have identified who is an 'electronic illiterate' (Mark Newton's words), that is Mark Newton who pretends to be expert on DCC and model railway control. I only appear elitist to Mark Newton because of his current low status position in Australian society, which is all Mark's work.
--
Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards go to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Again Mark has no answer other than insults. This is because he does not have the skill to argue at a technical level.

The fact is I used command control on my layout for years before deciding I could operate my layout with similar or improved ease compared to command control systems using simple DC. I was able to get it up and running using DC in a similar time it would take to wire my locomotive fleet with DCC decoders, and was done at a fraction of the cost.

Mark suffers from the cultural cringe. The fact is the NSWGR was the largest employer in NSW and was the largest railway operation in Australia. Most of the NSW tramway system ran on roads, the main safe working being street traffic lights. Another distortion from Mark Newton, diverting away from the DCC DC debate because all he knows is how to solder a few wires to get DCC going. That's it. He had trouble thinking for himself, which is sometimes required in building a DC layout.

As usual Mark newton tells lies about what I have said and he shows his lack of knowledge on model railway electrics. My proven system works, is reliable, simple and cheap to implement. I do not need to elevate my status amongst my modelling peers. They are famaliar with my models and layouts and enjoy operating my layout. A joy Mark Newton will miss out on.

DC is still used by the vast majority of layout builders in Australia, and it will continue to progress.
--
Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards go to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.