Re: Number of electrical blocks?

Yes, we did. It was used here in North America on a relatively limited scale. ATC or Automatic Train Stop can be emulated with DCC. I have done it on a testing model railway, but no one in our operating group uses the feature.

Ahhhhh, but there's a rub. The rules require that the turnout be lined and locked to the siding as soon as the train that is to hold the main track arrives at the meeting point; whether his rear clears the other end or not. If not, then the headlight must be left lighted. You will have to find another way to do it other than either lining or not lining the turnout. You need to be able to control the headlights independently of turnout position.

As do I, It is much easier reading when you go ahead and snip out the bits you aren't needing in the discussion.

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

Your argument IS sophistry, nothing more. As others have also stated, the number of "button pushes" for consisting is nowhere near as many as you claim. Neither I, nor anybody I operate with uses 4 digit numbers to address individual locos.

Your attempt to exaggerate the complexity of the task is deliberately misleading, simply another straw man. Presumably you do this because you have no valid supporting argument...

Surely you're accustomed to being called a f****it by now?

As a fellow contributor to aus.rail wrote;

"Another corker Terry... pot calls kettle black!"

From a person who gets so precious and indignant about personal attacks, you are quite happy to make them yourself, Terry. Why state that I have "minimal knowledge and skills in the area of electrics and electronics"? I don't recall sending you a copy of my resume, so you are

- as usual - talking through your arse.

Mark Newton.

What fatuous nonsense! Put the decoders in the tenders, and you will still have ample space for flywheels, weight, and details. Although just how having a decoder fitted to a steam locomotive takes up space that could be used for detail escapes me. But judging by the photos on your web site, your models aren't that well detailed, anyway. If a model stops working, it is probably poor workmanship that is the cause, not the decoder.

Mark Newton.

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.

What if it is the number that Terry states? SO WHAT? How often do you have to create a consist? The club I belong to runs a show on the layout, 12 hours a day, during the county fair. If we run 4 frieghts (one direction) and 2 passengers (opposite direction) the number of block control button pushes is, not only, enourmous but, also tediously repetative. At the beginning of the day I set up a

4 unit consist. Two digits for consist #, four 4 digit loco numbers (16) + 4 "enter" + 4 "enter loco"'s + "setup" + 2 "direction" + 1 "enter". A couple more to get the lights working the way I want them when I'm finished that's 2 button pushes for the consist number and 1 to cancel ... let's round up to 40 button pushes. Using DC on the layout that's less than one loop around the layout for the 6 trains. It takes ~20 minutes to make it around the layout. Let's say 30 minutes, that's 24 loops in 12 hours. At ~30 button pushes for block control per loop that's ~720 button pushes, all of which are eliminated if we run DCC. That's 720 minus 40, or 680 extra button pushes if we run DC as opposed to DCC.

Even if everyone runs a 4 MU train thats only 240 button pushes total. DC still loses on the button push count. ANd that's rounding up for DCC and down for DC.

What if it is complex!? Running the club layout on DC is complex. It's a lot less so with DCC.

Comparing a one time setup count and ignoring the operation count, is indeed,

Paul

Sounds more an more like DCC.

Will you folks please get off the button-push counting for God's sake?

You run a DCC layout by pushing buttons You run a DC layout by twisting knobs, flipping switches and pushing buttons.

So get off it please. Both sides. It is a totally inane argument.

We are not searching for an acedemic proof of complexity. I do not care if there are seventy times seventy more buttons to push with DCC, because I cannot operate my trains the way I want to with the old-fashioned, one unit per electrical section method of DC. This is the only thing that matters. I want to operate my model railway exactly the same way I operated when I made my living on the prototype railway. With DC such a thing is impossible, ergo, for me, there is no DC option. There is no arguing this point with reasoned logic viv-a-vis system complexity. BECAUSE........We are not searching for an acedemic proof of complexity.

I cannot state it any clearer that: I have been there. (DC) I have done that. ( 50 years more or less) I have the Tee shirt so stating I have left the DC world. I shall never return.

There are those for whom DC is a perfectly viable method of operation. There is nothing whatever wrong with that. You cannot criticize an individual for non- prototypical operation if you do not know how the prototype he is modelling operated. All railways do not operate in the same way. Furthermore, you cannot criticize an individual for operating non prototypically if that is not what he is trying to do in the first place. In that case you need to be quiet and go elsewhere. Find someone who shares your interests and who will not be a source of vexation to you. It is impossible to pursuade everyone to your point of view. Ask Voltaire, he will tell you so.

Getting back on track..............I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the merits of DCC over DC in a setting where someone is trying to gather information with which to make a decision regarding which philosophy to adopt.

This incessant gainsaying accomplishes nothing. Terry Flynn will never convince me that a DC system is as versitile and simple to install and operate as a Digitrax DCC system. At the same time, there is no way that I will ever pursuade Terry that DCC is a superior system with regard to almost every aspect of engineering an operating system for a model railway. Neither of us accepts the basic tenets of the other. So be it. This is a basic feature of humans. We still can have a civil discussion without name-calling and gainsaying. And now, can we please stop attempting to state an acedemic proof of complexity? No such proof exists, because it is a matter of completely different technologies, with completely different approaches to a common goal.

I submit that it is only the goal that matters. If you are happy operating your model railway with DC; if you can do everything you want to do, the way you want to do it and if you derive pleasure from the duties intrinsic with DC operations, then you have all you need. If such is not the case, perhaps a logical and reasoned discussion of DCC is in order.

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

Had you noticed that you have to learn to program decoders? Had you noticed that you have to learn a whole new wiring/programming system to operate.

Do you not have turnouts, routes and signals?

It seems you may need to limit your "Buy DCC" advice to US modellers of US railways only, in future!

Regards, Greg.P.

What's the complete price for you to provide me a system just like yours?

That's the opnly way to compare the prices of various control systems.

About the same as programing the new DVD/VCR:-)

What new wiring? Just add DCC to one of the old cab control...turn all the cabs selections to DCC...

Turnouts, Yes, I do. I still switch them from the old controls. Stop the train and then switch the turnot just like one prototype does on its' mainline and the other does on its' branch lines:-)

So be it. Now everyone in NZ should ask Greg.P. on how to wire their layouts as I guess DCC is not the proper way of operating railroads down there:-)

Donald He was funny first, so I can too:-)

On my layout, the button pushes add up the other way around - every train departing from the station in one direction has pilots and bankers added. The bankers are dropped en-route. Both train and bankers enter the hidden yards - queue forward in steps and eventually return to the station where the pilot locos are removed. After initial cab/block allocation, there is no further DC throwing of block switches. I still can't get past the loco address problem of DCC.

Regards, Greg.P.

Froggy,

I started the discussion in response (OK, so I didn't start it ;-) to someone advising an apparent newcomer that DCC was the only way to go and that DC was gone along with the Dodos (or something very similar)

You should have said that to the original responder to the newbie - that way I would never have woken up!

In that case, it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the merits of DC and the limitations of DCC.

It is difficult to show that DC is simple to install because it isn't. It is certainly versatile within limits ans is as simple or as difficult to operate as the installer makes it.

It's not - DCC removes the track block control for direct loco control. If one is trying to emulate track block control then DCC becomes exceedingly difficult to impliment.

That would be nice. :-)

I would differ in that I think the ultimate goal is different.

I wonder if you might have hit on a point there - is model railways the main hobby, or is DCC the main hobby?

Regards, Greg.P.

Gee, I haven't even begun to bring the mouse into the program yet - I'm playing with a wireless mouse as a hand-held controller, but that's another issue. I'm using prototypical numbering for my tracks and turnouts, but a specific route switched turnout by turnout can be long winded so I've leapt into the future (from the past as it were) and am adding the route selection. Screens are directly under the baseboard and keyboards are hinged on the baseboard facia - where would I put a mousepad?? Eventually I hope to get flat screens and bring them up to a better height but I don't want to push the operators away from the layout with a desk/PC/monitor/keyboard/mousepad setup.

Regards, Greg.P.

A big advantage of DC is that you can build the system yourself as you need it. The initial outlay is quite small compared to DCC where apparently you need to buy the entire system in one go.

Regards, Greg.P.

Here in NZ there are very few "over the counter" NZ models. The majority of model train enthusiasts model one of: British/US/European/freelance with perhaps 10% modelling NZR through building kits or scratch building.

I gain a fair proportion of my hobby budget from model repairs, model electronics and DCC fitting and advice. I try to figure what modellers actually need before advising them on control systems.

Regards, Greg.P.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:34:46 UTC, Froggy wrote: 2000

Froggy,

Will you please stop being reasonable! Such an approach has no place on wreck.models.railroad.

As you say, been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I have been in model railroading since 1946. I won't go bac to DC. Visited a friend last night. He converted to DCC recently and now won't even consider DC. He runs on a 16.5" X 2' module set.

No. you don't. I do not typically program decoders. I merely change the default address and change the value of CV61. I have programmed decoders. It is not something that you can do at home. It requires a dedicated programming machine which has the capability to write code into the microprocessor. It cannot be done through the track pickups. Only a few user variables can be manipulated through the track connections. Most of these are left at the factory default settings. If you do not use special lighting, e.g., Mars, ditchlights, etc., there is nothing to do but change the default address. Hardly within the realm of programming. My VCR is more complex than a decoder

No, I didn't. See the above I only had to forget all the complexity of a DC wiring system

Yes, what of it? That aspect remains about the same regardless of the OS chosen. I have never seen a signal system that was controlled by the train driver as was described in another message. That sounds like a model railway system of signalling, not one used by an actual 1:1 railway. Oh, it works, but there's more to it than that.

DCC also happens to be very popular in Oz and Europe where they do not operate in the same manner as North America. Never the less, Lenz, Digitrax, Uhlenbrock and others seem to be enjoying a good market there. I believe DCC is also very popular in Japan and growing.

DC works for those who want to muck about with it. For all the rest there are other ways.

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

Newhouse)

Why? It's always good for a laugh ... well a chuckle anyway.

Paul

How do you run trains with half a control system?

How do you expand as your kids move out and you gain layout space?