Re: Number of electrical blocks?

He doesn't. He was calling me out on the statement that I made that I was not interested in learning how to program a PC such that it could run a DC railroad. Changing the address of a decoder and modifying a CV or two is several years worth of classroom time away from writing an OS program for a PC. Especially when you don't want to do it in the first place. I don't know how and I do not want to know how. It is excruciatingly boring to me. I would as soon do my own dental work.

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

You think so? I'm not so sure I bought a keyboard three weeks ago for US$35. While I was there I looked at a fairly nice 21 inch flat screen LCD. It was not nearly "Top Shelf", but it was nice. It cost more than I paid for a Digitrax DCS100 CPU/control unit and a DT100 Throttle. I could have thrown in a couple of UT1s, three or four decoders and a couple of remote panel jacks for the price of the thing.

Come to think of it, it was about the same price as Digitrax' new Radio Super Chief with the DT400 radio throttle.

Oh well, I suppose the savings are in volume, Huh?

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

I think that Mark and Terry do not get along well. At least when it comes to their trains. We should avoid upsetting them ...............F>

advising an

Only because you yanks are taking "dumbing down" to it's ultimate limits.

Hey, I'm as good as the next man at arguing with Terry!

limitations

Right - Analogue is the basis of controlling model railways - DCC is a passing phase, the technology is older than IBM's PC, but with similar limitations and about due for a replacement.

one is trying

"Block" in prototype railway terms doesn't include powering locomotives from the running rails, let alone controlling them. (BTW I can find you a prototype that works that way) I'm talking block control in prototype terms, as that's what I try to model.

You're stuck in "modelling models" mode.

Think "Prototype".

I'm all for a full 12 volts on the rails - I often use it myself in PWM mode.

With an additional layer or two of technology on top of already existing technology - reminds me of MS Windows.

Most railways operate by block control, whether it be fixed position signal blocks, track mounted transducers or radio link "moving blocks".

Regards, Greg.P.

OK, so you load program values - values relating to data the decoder needs. You can't load real world values like "45Km/hr" top speed or "1m/sec" acceleration - you have to load values that the decoder can translate into real world actions. That is a form of programming.

Of course it can be done in the home - with the right equipment.

Check how many VCRs in the world flash "12:00". (actually, mine is since Sunday's power cut)

to operate.

You needed to learn the purposes of many of the CVs.

Huh? I use DCC to link all my turnouts, signals and block relays - cuts down an awful lot of wiring! The 8 data wires from the computer can operate 64thousand odd accessories. (OK, DCC based)

Other DCC proponents here describe the driver operating points etc while running their trains.

You seem to have a very narrow view of signalling systems! The US has signalling systems that operate semi-automatically, certainly to the point of resetting block signals behind a train to danger.

railways only,

Sure, European modellers are even more prone to coming against the limitations of DCC - DCC is toy train stuff there.

Toy trains are very popular. Realistic layout operation is a minority hobby.

Well, I haven't found any other ways.

Regards, Greg.P.

Newhouse)

We're covering some interesting model philosophy. :-)

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.

One analogue controller, two analogue controllers ... Each piece is a control system in itself.

You add more tracks, trains, blocks, signals, ....

I need them either way. What do you do, memorise the address of every turnout and it's current setting???

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:56:02 +1200, Gregory Procter wrote:

A concrete post could do as well

Dream on Don Quixote. There are windmills aplenty

one is trying

Indeed yes, I am sure that you can. In this big world there simply MUST be some bizarre-ass rail operation that chose to work that way. But just grant me that it is not the norm and lets get on with it, OK

PWM was the last iteration of DC that I used before I put my brain into gear and made the transition to DCC. I built everything between the wall plug and the locomotive motor. It worked very well. I said I didn't enjoy it. I did not say that I couldn't do it. I don't enjoy pulling weeds either, but I am quite good at executing the little buggars. I do it because I enjoy my gardening. If someone invented a fully automatic weed eliminator, I would get it tomorrow.

I am thinking prototype and that's the problem. I cannot understand, and you are not explaining, how "prototype" block control operates prototype trains

technology - reminds

These are signal blocks and only the signal system is affected by them. They detect the presence/absence of trains upon the rails and activate the signal aspects accordingly. They in no way whatever inhibit or control the movement of the trains directly. The only thing blocks do is divide the railroad into signaled segments. There is nothing in the system that can cause a train to be prevented from proceeding OR that can cause a train to move. The ONLY thing that a signal can do is convey information to the engine driver regarding track conditions ahead. It is the engine driver's responsibility and duty to know and obey the information supplied to him by the signals. He does NOT control them. They do NOT control the train. This is true in every type of signaled territory that I have ever known anything about.

All this has nothing whatever to do with the application of DCC to operate the trains. In fact, the use of DCC, as I have said for the eleven-hundredth time now, is the most like real life of any system. It gives the model engineman the same responsibilities and duties that his prototype counterpart has.

If the engineman of a prototype train passes a stop signal, he will not short out the railroad. He will not find his train suddenly under the control of another engineman and he will not suddenly come to an abrupt halt and lose control of his locomotive. In fact nothing will happen unless he meets another train coming the other way, or finds one stopped in front of him. Of course, later, even if nothing happens, he will be disciplined. Perhaps suspended without pay for some period if the incident was not a serious one.

You DC fellows are mixing and matching terms to try to make your point and it isn't going to work. The signals on a railway are not part of the operating system that controls the motion of the train. The only thing they can do is convey information to the operator of the train.

Why is it so difficult for me to explain that? Dividing the railroad into signaled sections has absolutely nothing to do with operating it with DCC. Using DCC, however, means that the railroad has ONLY to be divided into signaled segments, Just like a prototype railroad. There is no need for electrical blocks which must be individually selected by some means and assigned to a specific throttle such that the voltage, or apparent voltage, and polarity on that discrete piece of railroad is variable. This then, means that every locomotive that is in that electrical segment will respond to that throttle's setting. On a single track main line that is not a big deal, since only one train at a time usually occupies the section of railroad between two signals. This is not always the case, but it will do for the moment. Where you have more than a single track main line, you now have much greater complexity with your OS. In addition to signal blocks, you now must have electrical blocks for each track or group of tracks. These must be isolated such that there will be no possibility of short circuits when the polarities between segments differ. In yards and other areas of heavy locomotive density, it means that only one locomotive at a time can be on any track. It means that two locos cannot couple to each other except where the letter X marks the spot. It means that two locomotives cannot work in concert to effect rapid servicing of through trains when it is necessary for them to be in the same electrical section at the same time. To compensate for this (shortcoming) the yard is divided into a plethora of electrical blocks. Even then it is not enough, as there is no flexibility beyond what the designer thought of when he built the yard. In a real rail yard, the yardmaster and each of the several train crews at work there are responsible for observing safe working rules. There is no system of controlling power to the tracks to control the locomotives. In fact this is true of every locomotive on the railroad, not just in the yards. They are free to run upon any track at any time in either direction. If you cannot do that then you are not operating prototypically in spite of your protestations. You are merely dancing a choreographed dance, like a machine running a program. I have said before and I will say again, prototypical operating is determined by the rules of operation not by the operating system.

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

No surprise there since he just keeps going, and going, and . . .

Paul - "The CB&Q Guy"

I'm not usually one for tilting at windmills nor riding donkeys - DCC is a donkey .

one is trying

Sure.

There's the difference - I've built my DC system and enjoyed it. The DCC "replacement" needed more money thrown at it than I cared to waste and more technical input than DC.

Would we all agree on the definition of a weed? ;^)

Who ever said that the point of prototype block control was to operate trains? (hey, I know what I mean by that :-) The point is that I use the prototypical block control replication additionally to link model "cab" to model loco.

My particular prototype uses trackside magnets and resonating circuits to automatically brake trains.

I'm sure you can come up with a prototype to justify standing elsewhere than inside your loco while driving it, so I'm not going to take you to task for that transgression.

technology - reminds

blocks, track

The signals have no effect on your loco drivers? Shame on you!

Great! Your DCC railway does this as well, obviously.

Well, that puts you into the iron age at least. Signal control of trains is common.

I'll let you rethink that comment.

You need to read wider or get out of the house more often.

I've often watched the correlation between a red light changing to green and a stopped train beginning to move - you mean that is entirely a coincidence??? Well I'll be blowed!

We've already shown in previous postings that that is not correct.

Absolutely - that seems to be a common rule on many railways!

Gee, that's clever - imagine the potential for disaster if he/she did.

We've covered this point a number of times - in more advanced countries the signals do stop the trains if the driver fails to follow the rules.

You need to get out more often.

You're clutching for straws - who amongst real modellers wants to reproduce destructive collisions?

Fine, the same happens on a DC layout.

Your electrical design ability was obviously lacking!

We've covered that point numerous times - yes that happens on the prototype.

Let's see - two Trix BigBoys at $600- each and say 10 wagons out of a couple of hundred behind on the floor - that's $1,500- you're prepared to destroy for a pointless principle!

I'm prepared to disipline incompetents when they first over-run the signal.

They overran a signal - that's multi-million dollar serious!

You're playing with preconceived ideas about what signals on DC layouts do. Sure, in the hidden parts of my layout, the non-existant signals control the trains - that can't be any different whether control is DCC or analogue - that's the nature of the layout to represent the prototype. In the visible parts, the signals (blocks/detectors) have two distinct functions. One is to operate the trains that should be running around me (the loco driver) and the other function is to maintain the analogue link between my hand-held and my locomotive(s) via the PC. The electrical connection is maintained relatively seamlessly and the signals do not directly control the train until collisions are imminent.

Because you don't know what you are talking about.

The prototype (usually) manages to employ a driver per train - I don't have that luxury unless I only operate on club nights. I need a means of having the PC take over the other tasks if I want to operate at odd moments.

How do you operate hidden staging yards?

Absolutely.

No difference between DC and DCC. Detectors (current type) require the track to be divided into blocks.

True -DCC requires a different method of polarity change to DC. - not simpler, just different.

True, I've accepted that point.

True, I've accepted that point.

Not true.

Hmmm.

You found you didn't know what you were doing when you designed your yard?

Sure.

They tend to follow the rails and the settings of the points, so it's not difficult to keep them linked to their correct controllers.

I can do all that within the design parameters - time will tell if I have got it wrong somewhere.

That's what I emulate.

Regards, Greg.P.

Remote Control Units:-) Used in yards, not everyone likes them either:-) Donald

Not really. You could implement it EXACTLY the same way in DCC if you wanted to. With your "traffic control" system, all you're doing is controlling electrical power to a section of track. It's irrelevant if that power is DC or DCC. Heck, you wouldn't even need rotary switches, just simple on/off toggles.

In fact, that might not be a bad idea for you - have a total DCC layout and use your beloved switches to control electrical (traffic) blocks on the mainline while still having the flexibility of DCC to do switching, helpers, etc where needed within a section.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" Operating Traffic Lights Crossbucks Special Effects Lighting

That's not what they want Mike. It seems that there are some who think that the signal system must be interlocked to the control of the track power. ........F>

Almost, but not quite, MRC DCC is a donkey Digitrax, Easy DCC, Lenz and NCE are thoroughbreds.

I suspect we probably would, at least those of us that are under 65.

(hey, I know what I

to link model

automatically brake

I asked not to introduce ATS into the equation. That is another one of your layers of technology on top of technology. "........With an additional layer or two of technology on top of already existing technology - reminds me of MS Windows." I could just as easily emulate that feature with DCC. So then, they cancel out and we can leave it out of the brew. OK?

inside your loco

Same as the power to the rails that you offered. But, I will grant you that it is not the norm and we will get on with it.

signals do stop the

I asked you not to introduce ATS into this discussion. If I choose to operate that way with DCC it is an easy matter to do so. The ability to prevent a train from passing a stop signal is already built in to the "Top Shelf" systems. you only have to decide to use it, thus it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. I might also add that the feature can be manually over-ridden so that if it is necessary to pass a stop signal, to help a train that has stalled for example, you can. A pilot engine can drop down from the top of the hill and couple onto the front of the stalled engine and drag it back up the hill. You can't do that with DC block control. That is unless you arrange for all engines that stall to do so at an insulated joint. A big X marks the spot where all stalls must occur, if they occur.

In a perfect world there are no stalls. In the real one they happen.

Gomez Addams? Other than that, I can think of no one.

Oh really? Pray tell me how you prevent an engine that runs into another engine's block from coming under the control of that block's controller? That is provided, of course, that a short circuit doesn't occur first and shut them both down. Since your locos respond only to changes in the state of the tracks beneath them, what way does one of them have of knowing which change is meant for it?

The same way that the rest of the railroad is operated. I don't use a PC to operate any part of the running of trains. Signals and main track turnouts are controlled by the computer, but it cannot run the trains. There are other DCC users who DO operate their railroads with a computer, but I haven't the slightest interest in doing so. The computer is a necessary evil to be avoided as much as possible. There is much software available to enable a PC to operate the railroad. The" toy train" fellows in Europe (as you called them) do it all the time.

How is that?

Ahhhh, to be perfect. It must be wonderful to always get a perfect result on everything, the first time every time. Alas, I do not have that luxury. Sometimes, when the concept collides with the real world, the discovery is made that things don't necessarily work the way they were envisioned. Twenty years in a mechanical engineering R&D lab taught me that this phenomena is not limited to model railways, but is pandemic. You are extremely fortunate to always get it right the first attempt. My hat is off to you. I, on the other hand, sometimes decide that I'd rather do it differently. I may discover that a turnout needs to be moved or that a track needs to be made shorter or longer. Since I do not model a copy of any actual rail yard the design (s) must go through a proving out period when a new one is built to see that it works well with the overall scheme of things and the flow of traffic. Mostly they do. Sometimes changes are called for. I find that this situation exists in the world of real railways as well.

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

wow, talk about elitism....

Dave.

which one?