DCC

"kim" wrote

Are you saying I'm not allowed to be open-minded?

John.

John Turner wrote:-

Are you saying Terry Flynn is not allowed to be open minded?

kim :o)

LOL! Are you saying Flynn has a mind?

As ever, another lie. What I wrote was this:

"Sounds like the best approach, I'll be talking to Gary at Model Railroad Craftsman about optimising the table for DCC."

I sought advice from a knowledgeable modeller about using a proprietary model I was unfamiliar with. Anyone with an ounce of sense would do the same.

Of course, as I expected, no useful advice was offered by the World's Greatest Railway Modeller.

Have a nice day.

"Mark Newton" wrote

C'mon girls stop squabbling.

John.

Nothing like a bit of quoting out of context. If you knew anything about turntable wiring you would not need to ask a retailers advice on how to 'optimise' it for DCC. If you knew anything about the subject you would know there is no fundamental difference in turntable wiring between DC and DCC. The only difference is with DCC there are easily obtainable commercial products that can reverse polarity. All the necessary electrical information had been provided in the post you quoted from expert

Phil: Actually, the difference that some desire, is the ability, when used for dcc, to remain powered at ALL times - including when rotating - thus maintaining lighting, smoke etc, at a time when on a 'dc' turntable, the power is likely to be noticable by its absence.. or the loco would tend to drive off mid turn!

When I modified my Fleischmann turntables, over 20 years ago, for Zero1 (no auto polarity reversers available): I included relays to isolate the track supply during turming, and also reversed the slip ring polarity mid turn (commutated it). This did/does not avoid the undesirability of losing/regaining the control+power signal at either end of the manouver.

When rotaing, with powered rails, the rail-ends which are being passed present nom problem if powered from the turntable, but, as with reverse feeding into non-isolated points, would cause a problem 50% of the time if also powered independantly.

That said, dcc is still the preferred solution. Too many dc (exhibition) layouts keep 'stalling' their trains because someone has forgotten to power up a section!! Whereas if a dcc driver overuns a point... that does deserve an inquiry for lack of due care and attention 8-) on the driver's (operator's) part.

Terry Flynn wrote: >

Yeah, must be why you do it so often.

The retailer in question is also an experienced modeller, who has personal experience of that particular product. Who would you suggest I ask instead, you?

As is so often the case, you are wrong, with regards to the Diamond Scale table. Just as well I didn't ask you, eh?

No, it wasn't. At least, not by you.

John Turner wrote: >

Not squabbling, John. Just expressing my utter contempt for the OP.

A comment from the World's Greatest Railway Modeller, who still claims it is impossible to install a decoder in a model steam loco without compromising it's appearance and performance.

If you are using a model with a sound module in it on DC, you have the same situation. The same problem and solution is required.

Your modification is also better for many DC applications. I also had a Fleishmann turntable. It was used unchanged when my layout used Command control (Dynatrol) and later using DC.

That applies to both DC and DCC.

Then they need to interlock block selection with signalling and incorporate some form of safe working method.

What happens with DCC is you probably will cause a short circuit, then all locomotives come to a stop in the DCC electrical block.

I've noticed in the UK many have stuck with the old DC block control style of layout operation. In Australia, many of us have been using the US style of DC cab control. After using command control on my layout and DCC on friends layouts I am still enthusiastic about DC. I am sure I will upgrade from cab control to DC block control. I am currently testing my prototype circuit before changing over. The DC block control method I have designed, (which has probably been done by others years ago) is simple and cheap to build, no software required, and is easier to use compared to DC cab control. It can be made to fit in with most prototypes block working. Compared to DCC it's cheaper and I can do most things DCC does. What DC cannot do, I do not need. There is more wiring compared to many DCC layouts, but those layouts usually do not have signalling.

Your the one pretending to know how to wire a turntable, therefore you would not need to ask the question.

Why am I wrong. Tell us what is the difference in wiring it between DC and DCC turn tables.

There was enough information. Clearly you did not understand it.

You words, not mine. Considering you are happy with exposed gearboxes on your HO US models, any installation will be up to your standard.

More lies from the habitual liar. If you like, I'll quote ALL of YOUR many posts to aus.rail and/or r.m.r. where you have repeatedly made this specific claim.

For DCC one would want the turning rails constantly live. (No change) There still has to be a point of rotation where the bridge polarity changes. For DCC one would want the stall tracks constantly live, rather than switched on by the bridge. (wire them individually, the bridge only breaks power)

Do you have a web page showing your DC cab control design... Might be interesting to make one...

Donald

LOL! That statement more clearly illustrates a lack of understanding of analog compared to DCC than any other I have ever read.

... but then, considering the author....

He understands more than he lets on - but he prefers misinformation and distortion, rather than presenting an objective case.

Nothing more needs to be said.