Re: Number of electrical blocks?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:14:01 +1200, Gregory Procter wrote:

computer able to

LOL! Hardly, You forgot to read the part that says it comes from the factory with that capability already built in. The CPU/Control center and the decoder work together to accomplish this. Ah, but I must, in the interest of full disclosure, say that it cannot be done in that simplest of worlds where only two wires are connected to the railroad. Although it does not begin to approach the complexity at the construction level of doing the same thing with DC, it does require a bit of wiring and circuitry. The ironic part about it is that the DCC system uses DC to make it happen. It works something like your computer block routing, except much simpler. There is no computer required other than the DCC control center and a decoder inside the loco. It is an electro-mechanical function such that the track is interlocked to the signal. When the signal is set to stop, the decoder automatically gets a message to stop before passing it. Now, that is not to say that you cannot use a computer to control the signals, you can, but they can also be automatic and be controlled by the movement of trains over the system. However, I think this may be a North American method of signal systems not used in NZ/OZ When working with North American signaling philosophy, this works very well. As I said, neither I nor any of the people in my operating group use this feature, as we consider it an unneeded bell or whistle. There are many, however, who do use it. It is a great feature for an automated model railway as it simplifies things greatly. With the combination of transponding, wherein the decoder and the control station can exchange positional information (kind of a DCC version of GPS) and speed stabilization; which maintains a uniform train speed up and down hill and around curves, and the "block control" feature, automation is a "piece of cake" as we Yanks say. I don't know why we say that, but we do. It is an idiom meaning "very easy". As easy as eating a piece of cake, perhaps? I don't know.

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

Reply to
Froggy
Loading thread data ...

Absolutely - that occurs whether DC or DCC is used - I might as well make use of the blocks for cab control seeing they already exist.

1/. Basic. :-) Yes, really! 2/.Ouch - it's still very much a mess at the moment and very much specific to the layout. I'm trying to get it into logical sub-programs but of course I'm also layout building and etc. I reckon within 5 years I will be able to show the code.

I've got one of those, but it's a small dark space - enought light and everything will melt.

I'm the only model railway fan in the region! (well, I believe there is another one somewhere, but I've only been here 6 months and haven't yet made contact)

Reply to
Gregory Procter

LOL.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

( snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz)

The entire thread is about electrical blocks. The single response that I posted was about the computer interface vs programming a decoder.

Reply to
Frank A. Rosenbaum

input. From there

route ahead. The loco

The issue of DC or DCC is irrelevant, although DCC eliminates the need for PC to set blocks. This is a software/detection issue and can be done as easily in one as the other. In fact, they'd be almost identical. The same detectors could be used.

The issue of DC or DCC is still irrelevant. This a software and detection issue, not power. The detection system can be identical, the software chosen (or written) to control DC or DCC trains.

Again, the issue of DC or DCC power is irrelevant. This is the same software/detection issue as in #2.

DC/DCC irrelevant. Identical software/detection issue,

accordance with the

Far easier with DCC.

requires throwing

Far easier with DCC.

I'm at a loss as to why this is a DCC/DC issue or how DCC is a limiting factor on your layout as described.

The issues you are raising are detection/software interface issues - not DCC/DC . The computer control principles are identical, the same detectors could be used, the only difference being the software must speed up, slow down, and stop a DC or a DCC train. Neither presents any particular difficulty.

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

formatting link

Reply to
Mike Tennent

No thanks - my hobby is model railways, not reading websites.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

Pray tell how you are going to become informed if you do not pursue the information? None of this was congenital for me. I had to read every word of it and learn how to use it.

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

Crosspatch, GA.

Reply to
Froggy

The hassle from 15 miles away is just as great. As much as I like Digitrax, I will be the first one to say that the Digitrax manuals are, in the words of the great Winston Churchill: "A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." In almost 25 years of reading and writing technical manuals and instructions, they are some of the hardest from which to wrest information that I have ever seen. By the time I cross reference and make margin notes, I have nearly re-written the manual. The Digitrax product is wonderful, but the manuals are awful.

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

Reply to
Froggy

What difference does 5000 miles make to websites. The answer to that question is yes, in most cases, Zimo have the best adjustment facilities. Keith

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

Reply to
Keith Norgrove

I've been offered no solution to the huge cost of adding decoders to all my locomotives. I've been offered no reasonable solution to the problem of recognising the address of individual locomotives. I've been offered complex solutions to the problem of my system recognising individual and mued locomotives. I've been told I made bad choices in my purchase of CU. I've been told to read all the web-sites of DCC suppliers. I've not been answered on queries regarding decoder capabilities that might go some way to justifying the huge costs.

I've accepted the advantages of MUing. (another additional cost where my present CU doesn't live up to promises) I've accepted the advantages of freer yard operation. - Analogue has a partial answer. I've long since accepted the advantages of constant lighting, a major point on a 50/50 goods/passenger railway.

"It's not a problem to me" is not an answer.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

That is one area that must fall into the unsolvable file. If you use DCC, you must have at least one decoder for each locomotive OR one decoder for each group of permanently coupled locomotives. You can parallel motors just so long as you do not exceed the current rating of the decoder. You will be required to come up with your own solution for wiring the locos together. Should not be difficult for a man of your skills.

However there is more. I will get to that later.

That is because of the way you have chosen to identify them

See above.

Most unfortunate, but apparently true. The MRC system is barely beyond the "toy train" strata. This is not your fault. You were misled by the adverts. They are very good at causing you to think that you are getting more than you really are. We learned how to do that from the British in the 18th century.

One major reason for these problems is that you have chosen to operate in a way that is outside the normal understanding and experience of the usual Layman DCC operator. You need the kind of information that can only come from someone like a manufacturers representative. Someone who is intimately familiar with all the parameters and options of his system; a specialist.

Here is the "more on that later" bit. It seems, thus far, that you have chosen to operate in a way that showcases the restrictions and limitations of both DC and DCC operating philosophies to their maximum. After all this discussion, it appears to me that there is no "Silver Bullet" that will cure all your ills and woes. You have locomotives on which there are numbers that cannot be read hiding in staging areas where they cannot be seen. This is indeed a tough nut to crack. You are (allegorically) both blind and deaf. There is very nearly no solution for that save meticulous record keeping and operation. You must always put the correct train into the correct track or you will lose them all. DC will not do all you wish it to do because of the limitations imposed by your choice of mode of operation DCC will not do all you wish it to do because of the limitations imposed by your choice of mode of operation. Apparently you have hit the jackpot.

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

Reply to
Froggy

Not a lot - perhaps a millionth of a second(?) The difference comes in obtaining the products - remember I said that my hobby is model railways, not reading web-sites.

You're saying that the Zimo decoders have adjustable degrees of feedback regulation? This is a vital point because otherwise the locos are going to continually fight each other and they are going to maintain constant speed. (Constant speed would look silly for steam locomotives on a steep gradient!)

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

Yes, so have Digitrax, so have ZTC, so have some Lenz, so have MERG kits, and I expect others to, but if you haven't time to look them up on the web I haven't time to do it for you.

And I'm sure a few visits to manufacturers site would take less of your modelling time than this newsgroup.

Keith

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

Reply to
Keith Norgrove

I've been offered no reasonable solution to the problem of recognising the address of individual locomotives.

Understand that. Didn't imply that you did anything "wrong". Simply stating the fact that you chose a very hard row to hoe, as it were. (quaint North American farming analogy.)

Alright then, I lost the context of this part of the thread. This may be an area where you need to fall back on your ingenuity. I cannot visualize exactly what you are trying to do ( or I do not remember ) such that you need to identify an individual loco. Operating a model railway sometimes requires compromises that are non-existant at the 1:1 level. For example; at 1:1 there is no trouble reading the loco numbers at a distance of ten meters. At the 1:87 level it is difficult enough just to see the locomotive. OK, OK.......ten «scale» meters, perhaps, but you can't get that close and stay there. That's only 115mm

Never said that you didn't. Just that you chose a difficult way to do it. There's nothing wrong about that, just difficult.

Have you tried Digitrax? Try the Digitrax internet discussion group. Here are some starters:

formatting link
This may be too basic and elementary for you, but forge on. Here is a site that may be helpful. Some very savvy people here:
formatting link

Pose this question of the Digitrax users group. I don't think you NEED to have a DC PWM control system with DCC riding on top. I think you just need a full-function DCC system. The lighting business should be a non-issue with DCC as the power is on the rails at all times. Any headlights or car lights that you have will be illuminated at all times.

There is no "fault". It's just that you have chosen a difficult way to do things. You may be required by forces beyond your control to make "adjustments". Such is the nature of this hobby; especially when you step out of the mainstream.

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

Reply to
Froggy

"this represents

No, the problem is that the DCC is basically reliant on one means of visual recognition. It would work fine if I had built a shelf layout and could stand closer to my locos, but that is a case of building to DCCs limitations.

can't be the

I have a staging yard of five return loop tracks under the visible part of the layout. Each loop is designed to queue trains. As each train leaves the yard, the following

2-7 trains move up a space. This takes up the entire area of the layout and the station and a section of main line take up the visible area.

No, I don't accept compromises. (other than the following list... ;-)

The platform furtherest away is just on one meter - there are four closely spaced tracks between me and it - even at 115mm I still couldn't read the numbers _through_ the other trains. Actually, that raises an interesting point - how do you read even BIG numbers through other trains?

I've chosen what I consider to be the easiest means of operation.

Thanks for the references.

operated by a

I can't convert my entire roster or even a resonable percentage in one go. Analogue on DCC is not workable for anything other than BIG motors.

So I still need electronics to turn coach lighting off - more $$$.

My "step out" is to take a move towards prototype operation, hence my original "limitations" comments.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

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.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

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.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

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.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

I made the controllers myself, so I had an extra cost saving, however the cost of a quality DC walk around controller is about the same price of a DCC walk around controller. Power supplies for each type are similar in price. The cost for switching for 5 cabs on each block is $10.70 AUS. I have 9 blocks. Assuming 60c US= $1AUS we get a total of about $58 US for block switching. Now I have about 15 locomotives on my layout, so in order that my DC system is dearer than DCC the cost of the extra wiring for the DC layout has to exceed the initial cost of the DCC command station and the cost of 15 DCC decoders (with back EMF) less the $58US. I can get 30m of 10A

2 core cable for about $60AUS, $36US. DCC still looks allot dearer.
Reply to
Terry Flynn

Button pushing is the real world of DCC hand controllers. The style of DCC layout I operate on means the above function is of little use, because after running one train, I get a new train with a different locomotive.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.