Re: Number of electrical blocks?

I lived in Japan for three years. They have some passenger trains that can place themselves within a meter of a designated point. I do not think that either one of us are talking about that kind of operation in this thread. You are talking 19th century steam and I am talking 1940s-50s North American prototype.

EUREKA, I HAVE IT !! GREG, your problem is not DCC. Your problem is MRC.

You are far to advanced to be able to make use of such a toy. No wonder you are talking about limitations. With the MRC system, you are eat-up with 'em. ( "Eat-up"- A Southern US phrase meaning covered by or inundated with )

Here in NA we have a choice of four, top-shelf systems. They are: Digitrax, Easy DCC, Lenz and North Coast Enginering. As far as I and most other operations oriented DCC users are concerned, the others are not suitable for our purposes

Forget about MRC and concentrate on the four that I have listed. I use Digitrax as do all my mates. We model railroad like a war game. It is fun, but it is serious business too. We do not just run trains, we emulate a real railroad in compressed time. The Digitrax system is more than adequate for all our needs. Take a bit of time, investigate Digitrax and we'll talk about it some more. As long as your DCC data is founded on MRC, there is nothing to talk about.

Yup. And I ain't ever going back either.

See my remarks re. MRC

If you need sources of informatin regarding Digitrax, or any of the three other systems, post back here and there will be someone to list them for you. You will see a large difference.

.............F>

Oh absolutely, make any positive statement about how things were done you will bring out a load of different ways.

I agree with you about CTC but all those early ones had switch and signal levers seperate, route setting came later, I was querying your

70 years in relation to the 'route setting rather than operating signals' bit.

From 'Elements of Railway Signaling', the GRS 75years book, which was

1979 meaning they will be celebrating their 100 next year!

First signalbox with grouped levers (no actual interlocking) 1843 Bricklayer's Arms Junction UK First mechanical interlocking 1856, Saxby UK First mechanical interlocking in USA, 1870, Trenton NJ First all-electric interlocking 1901, Eau Claire, Wis. First CTC, July 25th 1927, between Stanley and Berwick Ohio, NYC First NX interlocking 1937, Brunswick, England (first route setting system) First NX interlocking in the US, Girard Jn. Ohio, later in 1937 I don't think route setting came to CTC until computers started to be used in the 1970s.

Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Keith Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

Paul, when I say "you haven't resolved this point for me" and your response is "I don't have that problem" then of course we go around and around - the problem is still unresolved for me and DCC remains unable to give me the results I want. If you have an answer, tell me, otherwise you are the twit for responding without a constructive answer.

Sure, but fog tends to start at ground level and extend upwards. Distance posts tend to be at ground level while signals tend to be at driver eye height.

Depends - some people have no problem, others need to count the cash. ;^) It's a source of potential mistakes!

We have single manning.

We're saying the same thing! The "Dispatcher" is controlling trains in both directions - he/she gives the lead train clearance to meeting points.

OK, that's two more steps to get wrong :-) Here, we have single manning.

Sure, the dispatcher does the job your conductor is doing. (unless he gets bored, or wanders off to get coffee or go to the toilet or...)

Seems not.

Ours carry on at 100 km/hr.

The whole Christchurch-Invercargill route (thats about 500 miles) is without lights on the night shift. That's when the heavy freights are run.

Engineers design bridges, locomotives etc. Drivers and firemen run locomotives. Conductors collect tickets from passengers. (or wave sticks at orchestras) Towermen maintain chimney stacks, radio towers and the like. Operators work telegraphs, telephone switchboards etc.

Only having one person in the locomotive is safer than two... Have signal lights but turn them off at night when they would be best time to use them... Lumping tracks... What a way to run a railroad:-) No wonder you are scared about using DCC:-) Donald

Certainly - particularly when you're about to have head on collisions!

Think of the savings in power and replacement light bulbs - the signals were there, they took them out!

It's the bloody yank owners! It's definitely time to nationalize the railway again ;-)

Nahh, I'm not scared - it just doesn't work adequately.

OK, you got me there ;-) European trains are all tight coupled with screw links and sprung buffers so they can be stopped reasonably accurately.

Why didn't you tell me _before_ I bought the damn thing? ;-) Seriously, not all DCC is equal and such points only come up after one pays out the cash and tries to run trains.

Now you tell me!

Thanks!

What can I say at this point Greg? It would appear that you've been bitten by the Great White Marketing Shark. Perhaps you can find a buyer for the MRC system and reduce your losses, I certainly hope so. I'm afraid the MRC product will never do what you want to do, however, if you are still interested in the DCC style of ops, there is still hope. As I said earlier, you need to investigate Digitrax, or one of the other three. they have the power and versitility to operate the way it sounds like you want to operate. I think I mentioned that I preferred Digitrax above all others, but that's because I am most familiar with it and have the greatest ease of use with it.

So, things being the way they are, I suppose I need to bail out of this thread. I can't see that I can make any more significant contributions to it. We have established, I think, the root cause of the DCC problem and determined possible solutions. If you think there is any more that needs to be said just PING Froggy.

...............................F>

The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetnes of low price is forgotten...........John Ruskin

The number of button pushes is a matter of ease of use and time to perform the procedure. The more button pushes the more complex the task.

A standard Mark Newton personal attack and as usual does not have a supporting argument. If it was Aus.Rail he would be using foul language by now.

From a person who worked for the railways, yet told lies about NSW operations. He has also made the above attack without seeing or operating my model railway and having minimal knowledge and skills in the area of electrics and electronics. I am amazed he has been able to get his DCC system wired up and working, as it has 2 wires at least to the track and 4 wires for each locomotive. This must be the strongest argument for DCC, Mark Newton can get it to work, assuming he is not lying about his operational success with DCC.

Froggy, I still get to operate DCC layouts, and might even install a decoder in 1 or 2 of my diesel locomotives so I can run them at my friends using DCC one day. The doing of the 'DCC thing' still requires me to press select loco, press 4 buttons then press enter before I can run a train. On my simple low tech cab control system I select the cab of the block my locomotive is in. That's all, I now am ready to run as long as the signals and points are set.

The improvement in computer technology and electronics generally means both DC and DCC will continue to progress. For example it takes less components now to make a DC controller than 20 years ago.

I have indicated one example were DC can be easier to use compared to DCC. Most DC layouts I have experience with over the years were poorly designed when it comes to ease of operations. This does not need to be the case. Using the low tech solution I have used is limited to particular designs of layout from an operations view, but if you have a layout of this style, DC is still the way to go.

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

includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates

I look forward to the day when we can get rid of keyboards.

You might like to tell me then a easier way to operate using DCC so my friends and I can consider use these new developments.

I have simply shown how to do it the DC way. Others say I have said DC is better in all cases. I have said in the earlier DCC thread that DCC is most suited for street tram style layouts were there is no safe working required.

And I hope never to have to try to stuff into my locomotives decoders where I could have a bigger flywheel or more weight for traction or simply space for detail. If a model stops working I have less trouble working out the problem compared to DCC. My locomotives spend more time on the layout and less time on the work bench or programming track.

Get a real DCC cab. You only enter the loco number once unless you are running a lot of trains at once. Just use the recall to bring back a previous loco #. If it's too many button pushes then get a second cab. If it's still to many button pushes get a computer with a touch capability. Touch a loco, touch a destination.

This button push counting is ridiculous nonsense.

Paul

Froggy , haven't you heard of Automatic Train Control and fail safe systems. The driver goes past a red, the brakes are applied. I am sure we have discussed this in an earlier life.

The same for DC layouts.

There is not necessarily a dead zone using DC. It depends on the layout wiring and block placement compared to signals. Purely a decision of the layout builder. My layout does not have this feature except in the automatic progression hidden storage balloon loops.

because you don't

to turn off the

Yes it is easy to implment using DC. There are a number of ways. Firstly, your DC locomotive and system needs a constant lighting system to be comparable with DCC, either high frequency or a DC bias can be used. If you wire your turnouts so the power isolates the locomotive when the points are against it, (standard DC wiring down under) the lights turn off, just as you describe for your prototype, no extra button pushing which is required using DCC.

If it not clear the main line, the points cannot be changed, power is still on, lights are on using DC. It is easy with DC.

Again its no big deal using DC. One isolating switch properly located and labelled is required. The locomotive positioning needs only to be within about +/-20mm, often more. Thus with DC prototypical attachment of assistant locomotives is practical using DC. This is the easy bit. The hard bit is not getting a derailment when the lead engine stalls on dirty track and getting engines to run smoothly together. DCC makes this doable from an electrical perspective, but it does not cover many cases. The best answer is to use mechanically matched mechanisms with free wheeling gear boxes. I have one steam locomotive with this feature. If it stalls it simply gets a push which does not cause a derailment.

I doubt this has been done with DCC. Have you got an example.

I sniped the rest.

to every length

Not completely accurate. He also needed to install decoders into 99% of his models and go through a set up program for each locomotive. On my DC layout the switches on the layout replace the buttons on the DCC controller, no relays are necessary for a simple system, it just one of the old methods of doing DC. DC can be done without relays, toggle switches or computers to assign blocks . When you unpack a DCC system you are locked into a particular manufacturers bus system, incompatible with most other brands of DCC. For example if I visit a Digitrax layout and I own a Lenz DCC I cannot take my controller to operate on the Digitrax system. Thank the NMRA for not standardising the hand controller bus and communications. They gave in to US manufacturers interested in extracting maximum money from DCC users. It also stoped DC controller manufacturers and manufacturers of radio control controllers from using the same bus, thus decreasing direct competition of hand controllers. The end result is less interchange since the introduction of DCC. Good one NMRA.

There is no point to doing it any were on the layout because the prototype does not do it any were. They do it in accordance with location specific rules. In the above case on the locomotive siding.

Yes, my pair of 0-5-0 shunters. They work well and get used on both DC and DCC layouts.