Re: Number of electrical blocks?

I think I have found the problem with using DCC on your layout. Okay, that is other than the money that it would cost to change over:-)

First a couple of things just to make sure: Your Layout: Is DC. Is broken down into blocks The blocks can be controlled by the PC. The turnouts are controlled by the PC. You don't really care which train is going by when it is under PC control. The PC doesn't which train it is moving, just the blocks that the train is in and will go to. You have written your own PC program to run these trains.

Your biggest problem is that your computer cannot control the DCC decoders because of the decoder number because you have no way of reading the decoder information in the different blocks. Also that you cannot read the numbers on the locomotive without a electronic microscope:-)

Okay, if the above is true then you need to rewrite your computer program to include which locomotive is in which block. The program can just look up this information and send the proper command to the right loco by using the loco's decoder number. This is just a simple two column look up table: Locomotive number and the Block number.

With enough detectors under the track (remember now that the computer just needs to detect the train/loco and not the number) you could have the trains moving within real inches of each other.

Donald

NZ = OZ is the same as US = Mexico? Ok, but all I want to know is, which one (NZ or OZ) is supposed to be Mexico? ;-) LOL

Paul A. Cutler III

New Zealand is like Mexico - all the Kiwis are hell bent on getting into Australia. They all wind up in Bondi, where they aspire to "make a rully bug drug dull":-)

Mark.

Actually, a former NZ Prime Minister was correct when he said that the movement of Kiwis to Australia was raising the intellectual level of both countries!

Jeff Law

I knew I was getting myself into trouble with that comparison - perhaps I should have used US and Canada. ;-)

Nahh, we've exported all our most Aussie compatible citizens to Bondi - NZ is a better place for the opportunity - thanks Oz!

Regards, Greg.

No, it proves that one specific railroad was behind the times with it's safety equipment.

one is trying

Might I point out that your trains would stop as if they had hit brick walls?

one is trying

Wrong way around - use the signal system to route track power. The signalling system has to be there, so why not utilize it?

machine which

Huh, anyone can design a computer interface - it's no more difficult than sorting decoder CVs.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:09:39 UTC, Gregory Procter wrote: 2000

sorting decoder

Well hardly. I have done both. I have designed interfaces and programmed the computer to deal with them (in assembly language) on stuff that actually got sold to real customers for real money. CVs are trivial.

Greg, you may well enjoy diddling with this stuff. I don't. It's not that I can't, I just don't like it any more. I live happily with my DCC. Most people given the informed choice would probably do the same. You have fun your way, just don't try to foist it on others.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:50:28 +1200, Gregory Procter

Or perhaps GB and Ireland, I seem to remember all the Irish jokes in OZ are about Kiwis. ;-) Keith Make friends in the hobby. Keith Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

I like your rational approach :-)

_Can_ being the operative word.

_Are_ under specific circumstances.

True, it is "background" to the train I am operating.

True - even when I write the part of the program that tracks each train, the identity will be irrelevant to it's direct control.

Yes.

You've got it! Actually, it's not a problem because I'm not using DCC - DCC introduces a problem I don't presently have.

But ... but ... apparently I don't need blocks if I go DCC! ;-)

Yes, that's not too difficult - I'm surprised no-one thought of until now!

A problem arises - they always do - which I spotted in my wagon load (all right, car forwarding) programming. If there is any glitch in my programming - there always is - then the wagon/locomotive can get a step or more out with the computer's memory. The system _needs_ a direct reading mechanisim at some strategic point on the layout to ensure that it stays in touch with reality.

Everything needed now exists, other than a few lines of programming, a very large wad of money, the means of keeping the computer in touch with reality and sufficient advantage to make the change worthwhile.

Thanks for the imput,

Greg.

Yes. Very large and thick brick walls. How do you prevent this from happening when one of your operators inadvertently over-runs a stop signal with the system you have in place now? This is exactly what I have always seen happen on DC block control railroads.

With DCC you can prevent the over-run by slowing the train to a stop through settings in the onboard decoder before it passes the stop signal.

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

system has to be

Nothing wrong with that at all. It's just that you don't need to unless you have Direct Current and block control.

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

newcomers and rob

AH, but such is not the case. Nearly all of us have been there. We grew up on the dark side and have found the light in our middle and latter years. We are offering advice to the uninitiated and those who may not know, so that they will be aware that they have a choice. Those of us that have seen the light and accepted it do not want to see the newbie devoured by dinosaurs before he has a chance to make his own decisions. Few who experience the pleasure of DCC are ever again happy with the strait-jacket restrictions of DC. This is a demonstrable fact. There is not a single DC control model railway anywhere in my circle of hobby friends. Once they experience operations in the DCC environment with a group of serious (can't think of a better word at the moment) serious operations oriented group, they are made into believers.

It is a monumental task to cause a DC OS to emulate the flexibility of DCC. It requires a computer along with the knowledge of how to program it to do the "uninteresting bits". It requires .............well, never mind what it requires. We've been through it dozens of times now. It just isn't fun or easy unless you enjoy it. It is a hobby all of its own that only a very few model railroaders enjoy or care to muck about with.

There is no point arguing the merits of Direct Current control as a superior OS. I suppose a case can be made for the superiority of clipper ships, like the Cutty Sark, over large container carriers. But it doesn't matter. The clipper is a relic of the past and the large container carrier is the wave of today. It has to do with economics. Direct Current is, likewise, a relic that, regardless of strenuous efforts by it's proponents, is doomed to fade into the annals of model railway history. It has to do with economics, time and interest. For me and most medelers of today, DCC is less expensive in actual dollars over the long haul. DCC demands less of my hobby time, thus more can be devoted to the bits I enjoy. I am not the slighest bit interested in expanding my electrical knowledge and skills to any greater degree than fifty years of Direct Current Control systems has already expanded it.

I'm OUT Hallelujah I'm OUT And I'm never goin' back!

DCC Evangelist:...........F>

Because;

A: It's not prototypical,

and

B: Many US railroads do not have fixed signals as per NZ.

The signalling system

You've cut the context of my response.

Should I?

Tokens went out 30 years ago.

So compare Colorado.

Of course - your country has seventy times the population and 35 times the land area. Conversely, if US railroads moved the tonnage that NZs railway does, they would all be broke in a week. What did we just prove?

We have a US company imposing US rules on our railway - we have collisions, accidents, deaths and etc.

I've been trying to discuss model railways - I do however tend to respond in like manner.

Not my scene.