Anybody tried DCC and went back to DC?
Peter W.
bait. He has a valid point. Is there anybody out there who ran their
model trains using DC, then converted to DCC and went back to DC again?
If yes, then I would like to know what was the reason for going back to
DC.
I expect this thread to stay dead (I'm hoping for honest answers - no
silliness or speculations).
Peteski
Paul Newhouse
"Peter W." <pet...@my-deja.com> writes:
> I was reading the "DCC - why not?" thread and to took Jon Miller's
> bait. He has a valid point. Is there anybody out there who ran their
> model trains using DC, then converted to DCC and went back to DC again?
> If yes, then I would like to know what was the reason for going back to
> DC.
The club layout alternates between DC & DCC operations. One Friday it
is DC the next it is DCC. We rotate the schedule for shows as well.
Paul
--
The lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now.
Modular furniture is cruel and unusual.
Peter W.
Paul Newhouse wrote:
> In article <1156143512.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter W." <pet...@my-deja.com> writes:
> > I was reading the "DCC - why not?" thread and to took Jon Miller's
> > bait. He has a valid point. Is there anybody out there who ran their
> > model trains using DC, then converted to DCC and went back to DC again?
>
> And then back again, and back again and back again ...
>
> > If yes, then I would like to know what was the reason for going back to
> > DC.
>
> The club layout alternates between DC & DCC operations. One Friday it
> is DC the next it is DCC. We rotate the schedule for shows as well.
>
> Paul
You got me Paul. :-P
I meant that someone switched to DCC from DC and then back to DC
more-or-less permanently for some reason.
My local N-Trak club does something similar to what you've described.
Since everything is modular (including wiring), we usually assign one
of the three tracks to DCC while others are DC. That way we keep most
of the members happy.
Peteski
Paul Newhouse
"Peter W." <pet...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> Paul Newhouse wrote:
>> In article <1156143512.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Peter W." <pet...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> > I was reading the "DCC - why not?" thread and to took Jon Miller's
>> > bait. He has a valid point. Is there anybody out there who ran their
>> > model trains using DC, then converted to DCC and went back to DC again?
>>
>> And then back again, and back again and back again ...
>>
>> > If yes, then I would like to know what was the reason for going back to
>> > DC.
>>
>> The club layout alternates between DC & DCC operations. One Friday it
>> is DC the next it is DCC. We rotate the schedule for shows as well.
>>
>> Paul
>
> You got me Paul. :-P
*8^}
> I meant that someone switched to DCC from DC and then back to DC
> more-or-less permanently for some reason.
I knew what you meant. I can't imagine giving up DCC. I still
operate on DC layouts but, they all seem to require a lot of
attention to the mechanics of how the layout works and less on
the operation of the railway.
> My local N-Trak club does something similar to what you've described.
> Since everything is modular (including wiring), we usually assign one
> of the three tracks to DCC while others are DC. That way we keep most
> of the members happy.
It's definately a compromise. Partly because we have members who
will not convert (some because of $$ but, there is an assortment of
reasons) and partly because there are some engines that are too
problematic to convert.
JB/NL
@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
I did.
I went back to DC for a couple of reasons:
1. Cost. I run almost exclusively with multiple unit trains with center motor
cars. To DCC-ify a complete unit would require 3 decoders - ouch.
2. Installation. I work in N scale, and there's not a heck of a lot of room
to install decoders, never mind getting ones that will fit, plus the models
of my prototype aren' exactly "DCC-friendly" or even "DCC-compatible"
3. Too many features. I found out I didn't need DCC to run the layout I
really wanted (single track point to loop) and most of the things in DCC were
well beyond both my comprehension or willingness to learn about.
--
JB/NL <tsu...@xs4all.nl>
If anyone asks me what I am, I will say I am myself.
If I am forced to choose what to be, I will choose nothing.
Greg.P.
I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the layout is
not about driving individual trains around tracks but about numerous trains
operating at once to give an impression of the way _railways_ operate.
As railways operate by block, with only one train per block, I find there is
little need to operate two trains per block so the added expense of DCC is
not IMHO justified.
From reading assorted newsgroups, my impression is that DCC is almost a
separate hobby from model railways.
Regards,
Greg.P.
"Peter W." <pet...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1156143512.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Frank A. Rosenbaum
--
Frank Rosenbaum
Please support the following train meets if you can
Gratiot Valley ( www.gvrr.org ) in Macomb Michigan in March and November
and the Kalamazoo Model Railroad Historical Society ( www.kmrhs.org ) at the
Kalamazoo Fairgrounds in Kalamazoo MI in October.
Also check out the Westchester Model Railroad Club's train meet in Greenwich
CT in November and March.
Visit this web site to see my bridge and the KMRHS http://tinyurl.com/7uqdr
Frank Rosenbaum
"JB/NL" <tsu...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns9827EA6C5371...@194.109.133.242...
> "Peter W." <pet...@my-deja.com> wrote in news:1156143512.648525.197930
> @i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I was reading the "DCC - why not?" thread and to took Jon Miller's
>> bait. He has a valid point. Is there anybody out there who ran their
>> model trains using DC, then converted to DCC and went back to DC again?
>>
>> If yes, then I would like to know what was the reason for going back to
>> DC.
>>
>> I expect this thread to stay dead (I'm hoping for honest answers - no
>> silliness or speculations).
>
> I did.
>
> I went back to DC for a couple of reasons:
>
> 1. Cost. I run almost exclusively with multiple unit trains with center
> motor
> cars. To DCC-ify a complete unit would require 3 decoders - ouch.
What is a center motor car? Is that a mid train helper?
> 2. Installation. I work in N scale, and there's not a heck of a lot of
> room
> to install decoders, never mind getting ones that will fit, plus the
> models
> of my prototype aren' exactly "DCC-friendly" or even "DCC-compatible"
I agree, many older N scale will be very hard to re-fit. what era are you
emulating?
> 3. Too many features. I found out I didn't need DCC to run the layout I
> really wanted (single track point to loop) and most of the things in DCC
> were
> well beyond both my comprehension or willingness to learn about.
At the least, you just have to change the address of the loco. I will
presume that you already have an automatic reverse for the loop.
Frank A. Rosenbaum
--
Frank Rosenbaum
Please support the following train meets if you can
Gratiot Valley ( www.gvrr.org ) in Macomb Michigan in March and November
and the Kalamazoo Model Railroad Historical Society ( www.kmrhs.org ) at the
Kalamazoo Fairgrounds in Kalamazoo MI in October.
Also check out the Westchester Model Railroad Club's train meet in Greenwich
CT in November and March.
Visit this web site to see my bridge and the KMRHS http://tinyurl.com/7uqdr
Frank Rosenbaum
"Greg.P." <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ecfrem$icj$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Yes, I went back.
> I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the layout is
> not about driving individual trains around tracks but about numerous
> trains operating at once to give an impression of the way _railways_
> operate.
Greg, how many operators do you have when you run the trains? At the club
that I belong to, we can have 8 to 10 trains on the mainlines at any one
time along with 3 yards. All this is with DCC and the only 'buttons' that we
need to push or toggles that need to be thrown are for the switches. Other
than acquiring the locos and MUing them.
> As railways operate by block, with only one train per block, I find there
> is little need to operate two trains per block so the added expense of DCC
> is not IMHO justified.
Does your railroad prototype have sound? Do you use sound?
> From reading assorted newsgroups, my impression is that DCC is almost a
> separate hobby from model railways.
It can be, but it doesn't have to be. I am familiar with DCC, but not an
expert. I don't change anything but the address and maybe the horn, that's
it.
Roger T.
> Yes, I went back.
> I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the layout is
> not about driving individual trains around tracks but about numerous
> trains operating at once to give an impression of the way _railways_
> operate.
My model railway is ALL about driving trains, no mindlessly orbiting trains
with nobody in control. My trains set out and pick up blocks of cars, a
move that in many cases requires the use of two locomotives, one working the
head end and one the rear, both at the same time.
> As railways operate by block, with only one train per block, I find there
> is little need to operate two trains per block so the added expense of DCC
> is not IMHO justified.
Perhaps you're correct for a roundy-go-roundy but that's not, in my book,
operation. It's at best, running trains, at worst, playing with toy trains.
With protypical operation, what happens at stations and yards where it's
often required to have two locomotives in the same block at the same time?
Direct DC this is difficult to achieve without extra block, it's easy with
DCC. See above regarding setting out and picking up blocks of cars.
> From reading assorted newsgroups, my impression is that DCC is almost a
> separate hobby from model railways.
You have a point here. I feel that most DCC throttles are needsly complex
and control far too many so called accessories. They seem to do thsi just
because the technology permits it, not because of any real need. All I
really need is a throttle that can be easily assigned to nay locomotive or
consist, make the locomotive go forward, backwards and be able to turn on,
dim or turn off the headlights. I don't need anything else.
--
Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Peter W.
your pregnature {is that what you call a top-posted "signature" :-) }
is just crazy. It makes reading your messages a real chore. I'm already
sick of people's long signatures and now you come up with a pre and
post useful message garbage. Stop the insanity, please!
But I do agree with the useful parts of your postings.
JB and Greg: thanks for your honest answers. That's what I was looking
for.
I'm into N-Scale but I don't own a layout. But I have the next best
thing - I am part of a group of modelers who built (and now operate) a
layout at my friend's house.
He started with DC in mind. I even came up with a nifty electronically
controlled cab/block assignment logic. That was in the early 90s. But
then DCC got popular (and small enough for N scale) somy friend decided
to scrap the DC in favor of DCC. He is not regretting that move.
Besides that layout I regularely operate on about 10 other layouts
(from 0 to N scale). Except for one 0 scale layout which started as
Dynatrol, the others were all DC. Now, most are converted to DCC. I
find it amazing how much easier and nicer they are to operate. It is
funny how don't miss things like block/cab assignments (local or by
dispatcher), running a block and losing control of your train, lashing
up multiple locos and other similar things. DCC just makes it so easy,
you don't even think about any of those extra non-prototypical things
which had to be done on DC layouts.
Frank is right, DCC can be as hard or easy as you make it yourself.
There is no need to fully utilize all the features. Nobody on DCC
layouts I visit utilizes all the DCC functionality.
And the current decoders are amazingly small and inexpensive.
One negative is the learning curve for each DCC control system. They
are all different enough to cause some grief. I find Digitrax and NCR
to be most complex and Easy-DCC the simplest. Those are the ones I
deal with.
But if you prefer DC, that is your choice and I will not say that it is
a bad one. Knowing what I now know, I would not even consider going
back to DC unless it was a simple continous loop playout.
Peteski
Peter W.
Roger T. wrote:
> You have a point here. I feel that most DCC throttles are needsly complex
> and control far too many so called accessories. They seem to do thsi just
> because the technology permits it, not because of any real need. All I
> really need is a throttle that can be easily assigned to nay locomotive or
> consist, make the locomotive go forward, backwards and be able to turn on,
> dim or turn off the headlights. I don't need anything else.
>
Roger,
this is exactly what EasyDCC is all about. I've been using it since it
was originally placed on the market.
Simple no-frill throttles and pretty easy to use programing station.
Wired throttles are very simple and the older wireless ones are quite
simple too. And the speed control know is a real potentiometer, not
some endlesly spinning encoder. You can drive your trains without
confusion as to which button to push next.
http://www.cvpusa.com/
Check EasyDCC and Wireless Items links.
Throttles RF1300 and XR1300.
No, I don't work for CVP nor I'm related to them any way - just a happy
user.
This is getting OT for this thread, so I better stop. :-)
Peteski
Ken Rice
>"JB/NL" <tsu...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>news:Xns9827EA6C5371...@194.109.133.242...
>> "Peter W." <pet...@my-deja.com> wrote in news:1156143512.648525.197930
>> @i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>clip
>> 1. Cost. I run almost exclusively with multiple unit trains with center
>> motor cars. To DCC-ify a complete unit would require 3 decoders - ouch.
>What is a center motor car? Is that a mid train helper?
>clip
A center motor car refers to the power car in a multiple car passenger train.
These are usually models of Japanese, or European, passenger trains that do not
have a separate locomotive. Most of these models are made by Kato, Tomix and
Micro Ace. These is very little space, if any, for adding a decoder to the
power car.
>> 2. Installation. I work in N scale, and there's not a heck of a lot of
>> room to install decoders, never mind getting ones that will fit, plus the
>> models of my prototype aren' exactly "DCC-friendly" or even "DCC-compatible"
>I agree, many older N scale will be very hard to re-fit. what era are you
>emulating?
I also complained early in the thread about not being able to fit decoders in
my locomotives. I don't know about the JP/NL, but the era I model is 1835 to
the present. Yes, I have N-scale models covering the entire period.
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track,
Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of Lego bricks
http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice
Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire,
Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others.
mark_newton
> I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the
> layout is not about driving individual trains around tracks but about
> numerous trains operating at once to give an impression of the way
> _railways_ operate.
I wondered how long it would be before you started posting this
nonsensical bullshit again.
> As railways operate by block, with only one train per block...
As you have been told *REPEATEDLY*, that is not always the case. How
many times do you need to be reminded that the operating rules for
German railways are not the same as those for other systems in other
countries, the USA in particular? How many more times are you going to
argue the toss with knowledgable people who run trains for a living???
mark_newton
> I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the
> layout is not about driving individual trains around tracks but about
> numerous trains operating at once to give an impression of the way
> _railways_ operate.
I wondered how long it would be before you started posting this
nonsensical bullshit again.
> As railways operate by block, with only one train per block...
As you have been told *REPEATEDLY*, that is not always the case. Even
under the German operating rules and procedures there is provision for
more than one train in a block.
Steve Caple
> As you have been told *REPEATEDLY*,
[hic!]
Repetitiously redundant.
--
Steve
mark_newton
>
> "Greg.P." <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:ecfrem$icj$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>> Yes, I went back.
>> I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the layout is
>> not about driving individual trains around tracks but about numerous
>> trains operating at once to give an impression of the way _railways_
>> operate.
>
> My model railway is ALL about driving trains, no mindlessly orbiting trains
> with nobody in control. My trains set out and pick up blocks of cars, a
> move that in many cases requires the use of two locomotives, one working the
> head end and one the rear, both at the same time.
Roger, you're wasting your time trying to get Greg to understand and
acknowledge your point. He has a passing acquaintance with German
safeworking, and mistakenly assumes that all railways throughout the
world operate in the same way as his prototype. In his myopic view,
*ANY* operation that doesn't conform to his criteria is just "slot cars"...
Cheers,
Mark.
Pac Man
>
> Roger,
> this is exactly what EasyDCC is all about. I've been using it since it
> was originally placed on the market.
>
> Simple no-frill throttles and pretty easy to use programing station.
> Wired throttles are very simple and the older wireless ones are quite
> simple too. And the speed control know is a real potentiometer, not
> some endlesly spinning encoder. You can drive your trains without
> confusion as to which button to push next.
Um, I don't know how to tell you this, but I followed the link, and
looked at their TE9000 wireless controller (throttle)...and it uses "some
endlesly spinning encoder". Oops!
And the throttle interface reminds me of the old Digitrax DT100
throttles (and not in a good way). Press "SEL" & "5" to throw a switch
machine, and press F1 or F3 to throw the switch? Press "SPR" for emergency
stop? Press "#" to select a loco, and not "SEL"? That is just plain
confusing right there. And this is the simple, easy to use EasyDCC? No
thanks.
I think I'll be keeping my DT400 throttle, where if I want to throw a
switch, I hit "SWCH". If I want to select a loco, I hit "LOCO". If I want
to know what time it is, I hit "CLOC". If I want to emergency stop my
train, I hit "STOP". And so on.
Paul A. Cutler III
*************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
Pac Man
"Roger T." <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote in message
news:c2806b47ecadf056...@grapevine.islandnet.com...
>
> You have a point here. I feel that most DCC throttles are needsly complex
> and control far too many so called accessories. They seem to do thsi just
> because the technology permits it, not because of any real need. All I
> really need is a throttle that can be easily assigned to nay locomotive or
> consist, make the locomotive go forward, backwards and be able to turn on,
> dim or turn off the headlights. I don't need anything else.
I geuss it's a good thing that most DCC manufacturers have "simple"
throttles for sale. UT4's are Digitrax' version. I know NCE has one, too.
Lenz has a knob throttle, but it does a bit more than a basic throttle does.
Edward A. Oates
at pet...@my-deja.com wrote on 8/22/06 8:44 PM:
For Digitrax users, there is the UT4 (cable and IR) and the UT4R (radio) are
pretty simple throttles: 4 address selector rotary dials,
forward/brake/reverse toggle, 8 buttons (6 for F1-12 (using a seventh
"shift" button), F0, "dispatch" and "steal" with shift, and a large knob for
speed control.
At least for DCC, can't get much simple than that.
--
Ed Oates
http://homepage.mac.com/edoates
DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com
Greg.P.
"Frank A. Rosenbaum" <farose...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:DSLGg.146$Im5...@newsfe03.lga...
>
>
> --
>
> Frank Rosenbaum
> Please support the following train meets if you can
> Gratiot Valley ( www.gvrr.org ) in Macomb Michigan in March and November
> and the Kalamazoo Model Railroad Historical Society ( www.kmrhs.org ) at
> the
> Kalamazoo Fairgrounds in Kalamazoo MI in October.
> Also check out the Westchester Model Railroad Club's train meet in
> Greenwich
> CT in November and March.
>
> Visit this web site to see my bridge and the KMRHS
> http://tinyurl.com/7uqdr
> Frank Rosenbaum
>
> "Greg.P." <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:ecfrem$icj$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> Yes, I went back.
>> I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the layout
>> is not about driving individual trains around tracks but about numerous
>> trains operating at once to give an impression of the way _railways_
>> operate.
>
> Greg, how many operators do you have when you run the trains?
It's my own personal layout - I operate it, usually alone, sometimes with a
group.
At the club
> that I belong to, we can have 8 to 10 trains on the mainlines at any one
> time along with 3 yards.
No blocks? Don't you like prototype operation?
All this is with DCC and the only 'buttons' that we
> need to push or toggles that need to be thrown are for the switches. Other
> than acquiring the locos and MUing them.
You throw switches, I throw switches.
You have to memorize loco numbers and push specific buttons, I have to throw
specific switches.
Most of my block switching is automatic and progressive.
>
>> As railways operate by block, with only one train per block, I find there
>> is little need to operate two trains per block so the added expense of
>> DCC is not IMHO justified.
>
> Does your railroad prototype have sound? Do you use sound?
No - at present no-one has been able to tell me how to automatically switch
off sound for tunnels and hidden sections. I'll get to it.
I do have a baseboard mounted loco depot sound unit.
Greg.P.
"Roger T." <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote in message
news:c2806b47ecadf056...@grapevine.islandnet.com...
>
> news:ecfrem$icj$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>> Yes, I went back.
>> I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the layout
>> is
>> not about driving individual trains around tracks but about numerous
>> trains operating at once to give an impression of the way _railways_
>> operate.
>
> My model railway is ALL about driving trains, no mindlessly orbiting
> trains
> with nobody in control. My trains set out and pick up blocks of cars, a
> move that in many cases requires the use of two locomotives, one working
> the
> head end and one the rear, both at the same time.
Yeah yeah, playing drivers is a different hobby to modelling and operating a
railway.
>
>> As railways operate by block, with only one train per block, I find there
>> is little need to operate two trains per block so the added expense of
>> DCC
>> is not IMHO justified.
>
> Perhaps you're correct for a roundy-go-roundy but that's not, in my book,
> operation. It's at best, running trains, at worst, playing with toy
> trains.
We're accusing each other of the same thing. ;-)
You're playing engine driver in isolation - I'm playing railway operation.
> With protypical operation, what happens at stations and yards where it's
> often required to have two locomotives in the same block at the same time?
> Direct DC this is difficult to achieve without extra block, it's easy with
> DCC. See above regarding setting out and picking up blocks of cars.
I don't believe the set-up time is greatly different between the two
systems.
- I cut the rail and wire in a $1 toggle switch, or equivalent. (in my case
a 78p relay)
- you spend hundreds/thousands of dollars on DCC control systems and
decoders with a maximum of 5 year life before replacement, and then spend
many hours milling chassis and soldering in decoders, more hours setting up
CVs and posting queries to news groups asking why ...
- I click on the section of track on the diagram I want switched off.
- you look up stock tables to find loco addresses, input numerous numbers
and settings and memorise totally non-prototypical strings of commands to
cause your locos to co-operate with one another and a hand controller.
- I click a single switch to link block and controller to run the train.
>
>> From reading assorted newsgroups, my impression is that DCC is almost a
>> separate hobby from model railways.
>
> You have a point here. I feel that most DCC throttles are needsly complex
> and control far too many so called accessories. They seem to do thsi just
> because the technology permits it, not because of any real need. All I
> really need is a throttle that can be easily assigned to nay locomotive or
> consist, make the locomotive go forward, backwards and be able to turn on,
> dim or turn off the headlights. I don't need anything else.
Unless your track and turnouts move along with the train, why would you need
a mobile control position for them? ;-)
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg.P.
"mark_newton" <mark_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44EC45FC...@optusnet.com.au...
Any layout where the total extent of operation is mindlessly running trains
along a track is, IMHO, just "slotcar operation".
I've tried DCC - it doesn't add as much as it takes away from my style of
operation, plus it costs far too much for an established hobbyist and loco
collection.
Regards,
Greg.P.
JB/NL
$Im5...@newsfe03.lga:
>> "JB/NL" <tsu...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9827EA6C5371...@194.109.133.242...
>> 1. Cost. I run almost exclusively with multiple unit trains with center
>> motor
>> cars. To DCC-ify a complete unit would require 3 decoders - ouch.
>
> What is a center motor car? Is that a mid train helper?
My chosen prototype is Japanese multiple unit trains. (Specifically, diesel
multiple units of the northernmost island)
This means there is no dedicated locomotive, but each car has its own drive
train and is, effectively, self-propelled with the entire system linked to
the controls in the engineer's cab.
Well, ha'ts how the protottype does it.
In the models, there's usually one motored car, placed towards the center
of the formation. In a 7-car train, the motor car is typically the third or
fourth car (this helps with running both ways without too many problems)
>> 2. Installation. I work in N scale, and there's not a heck of a lot of
>> room
>> to install decoders, never mind getting ones that will fit, plus the
>> models
>> of my prototype aren' exactly "DCC-friendly" or even "DCC-compatible"
>
> I agree, many older N scale will be very hard to re-fit. what era are you
> emulating?
I'm running mostly new models. My chosen era is modern day, but the room
problem remains. Given that most cars have large windows and full
interiors, hiding a decoder can be next to impossible.
>> 3. Too many features. I found out I didn't need DCC to run the layout I
>> really wanted (single track point to loop) and most of the things in DCC
>> were
>> well beyond both my comprehension or willingness to learn about.
>
> At the least, you just have to change the address of the loco. I will
> presume that you already have an automatic reverse for the loop.
Actually no. I'm building my layout in easily transported modules using
sectional track (by Tomix, Japanese trains on Japanese track!!) -- it's not
that there isn't anything, but it's beyond my enjoyment level to install
such things. I like the manual approach too much to automate things.
Of course, I know this will come back to haunt me later, but for now I'm
happy with my choices.
Oh - layout in progress: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tsunami/sorachi/
Greg.P.
> Greg.P. wrote:
>
> > I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the
> > layout is not about driving individual trains around tracks but about
> > numerous trains operating at once to give an impression of the way
> > _railways_ operate.
>
> I wondered how long it would be before you started posting this
> nonsensical bullshit again.
>
I post such bullshit as a reaction to your (collective as well as
individual) bullshit.
You keep coming up with this "DCC is the ultimate" crap. It's one form of
control that has a lot of advantages and some major shortcomings.
DCC isn't the only way to achieve many of the functions available at the
outputs of loco decoders, but unfortunately most electronics producers have
jumped on the DCC bandwagon and totally ignored the other possibilities.
> > As railways operate by block, with only one train per block...
>
> As you have been told *REPEATEDLY*, that is not always the case.
Block control is normal on most railways of the world.
How
> many times do you need to be reminded that the operating rules for
> German railways are not the same as those for other systems in other
> countries, the USA in particular?
The USa is just one country in the world. You are circa 5% of the world's
population and possibly 1% of the World's railways.
> How many more times are you going to
> argue the toss with knowledgable people who run trains for a living???
>
My point is and always has been that DCC is a very limiting answer to
multiple model train control. It appeals to beginners. Once you settle on
that system you limit the potential of model railways.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Frank A. Rosenbaum
--
Frank Rosenbaum
Please support the following train meets if you can
Gratiot Valley ( www.gvrr.org ) in Macomb Michigan in March and November
and the Kalamazoo Model Railroad Historical Society ( www.kmrhs.org ) at the
Kalamazoo Fairgrounds in Kalamazoo MI in October.
Also check out the Westchester Model Railroad Club's train meet in Greenwich
CT in November and March.
Visit this web site to see my bridge and the KMRHS http://tinyurl.com/7uqdr
Frank Rosenbaum
"JB/NL" <tsu...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns9828EB533140...@194.109.133.242...
> "Frank A. Rosenbaum" <farose...@charter.net> wrote in news:FOLGg.145
> $Im5...@newsfe03.lga:
>
>>> "JB/NL" <tsu...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9827EA6C5371...@194.109.133.242...
>>> 1. Cost. I run almost exclusively with multiple unit trains with center
>>> motor
>>> cars. To DCC-ify a complete unit would require 3 decoders - ouch.
>>
>> What is a center motor car? Is that a mid train helper?
>
> My chosen prototype is Japanese multiple unit trains. (Specifically,
> diesel
> multiple units of the northernmost island)
> This means there is no dedicated locomotive, but each car has its own
> drive
> train and is, effectively, self-propelled with the entire system linked to
> the controls in the engineer's cab.
> Well, ha'ts how the protottype does it.
> In the models, there's usually one motored car, placed towards the center
> of the formation. In a 7-car train, the motor car is typically the third
> or
> fourth car (this helps with running both ways without too many problems)
OK, let's see if I understand, in each train there is one motor, that is one
decoder. How many mu sets are you running? is it three?
>>> 2. Installation. I work in N scale, and there's not a heck of a lot of
>>> room
>>> to install decoders, never mind getting ones that will fit, plus the
>>> models
>>> of my prototype aren' exactly "DCC-friendly" or even "DCC-compatible"
>>
>> I agree, many older N scale will be very hard to re-fit. what era are you
>> emulating?
>
> I'm running mostly new models. My chosen era is modern day, but the room
> problem remains. Given that most cars have large windows and full
> interiors, hiding a decoder can be next to impossible.
>
A Z scale decoder is quite tiny. TCS makes one that is smaller than a
postage stamp. And it has some functions. If the MU sets are permanently
coupled, you can run wires through them for lighting, if needs be.
>>> 3. Too many features. I found out I didn't need DCC to run the layout I
>>> really wanted (single track point to loop) and most of the things in DCC
>>> were
>>> well beyond both my comprehension or willingness to learn about.
>>
>> At the least, you just have to change the address of the loco. I will
>> presume that you already have an automatic reverse for the loop.
>
> Actually no. I'm building my layout in easily transported modules using
> sectional track (by Tomix, Japanese trains on Japanese track!!) -- it's
> not
> that there isn't anything, but it's beyond my enjoyment level to install
> such things. I like the manual approach too much to automate things.
>
> Of course, I know this will come back to haunt me later, but for now I'm
> happy with my choices.
Yes, it probably will.
Wiring a reverse loop module is just four wires a small adjustment for
sensitivity and then it is hands off forever.
> Oh - layout in progress: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tsunami/sorachi/
I got a page could not be found, so I opened the home page and couldn't read
the language. Do you have another way to get to your page?
JB/NL
>
> "mark_newton" <mark_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:44EBDEEE...@optusnet.com.au...
>> Greg.P. wrote:
>>
>> > I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the
>> > layout is not about driving individual trains around tracks but about
>> > numerous trains operating at once to give an impression of the way
>> > _railways_ operate.
>>
>> I wondered how long it would be before you started posting this
>> nonsensical bullshit again.
>>
>
> I post such bullshit as a reaction to your (collective as well as
> individual) bullshit.
Handbrake please!
> You keep coming up with this "DCC is the ultimate" crap. It's one form
> of control that has a lot of advantages and some major shortcomings.
Name me a control system that doesn't.
> DCC isn't the only way to achieve many of the functions available at the
> outputs of loco decoders, but unfortunately most electronics producers
> have jumped on the DCC bandwagon and totally ignored the other
> possibilities.
Because DCC is an open system with described standards -- this means that
multiple manufacturers can all add components to a common system. This is
typically good for the customer, who gets to choose what he wants.
Closed/propietary systems have the disadvantage that theey either limit you
to equipment from that manufacturer, or worse, if said producer goes under,
you're out of luck - or in deep trouble.
> My point is and always has been that DCC is a very limiting answer to
> multiple model train control. It appeals to beginners. Once you settle
> on that system you limit the potential of model railways.
Is the system limited or your view of it ?
There was a famous programmer once, who said that "Unix will be many things
to many people, but it will never be everything to everyone" -- he was
right.
Just the same, DCC *and* block control *and* DC control and whatever other
control system you pick - it will be many things to many people, but none
of them will be everythign to everyone -- everyone makes the choice they
consider to be best for them - some stick with DC because it's the simplest
to wire and build, some go for DCC which offers train control independent
of track position, some choose block control because it fits their
prototype or their operating style better -- every system has its pro's and
con's.
Personally, I've chosen DC, so laugh at me and ridicule me, I don't care.
It was MY choice because I liked it best.
That said, I do understand why people choose other systems, and I respect
their choice, and their enthusiasm in trying to explain its virtues.
But that does not give me right nor position to slag them off just because
their choice isn't mine.
Peace.
Roger T.
"Greg.P."
> Any layout where the total extent of operation is mindlessly running
> trains along a track is, IMHO, just "slotcar operation".
But you wrote: -
"Yes, I went back. I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails.
ie the layout is not about driving individual trains around tracks but about
numerous trains operating at once to give an impression of the way
_railways_ operate."
You're contradicting yourself. How can "not driving individual trains" and
"mindlessly running trains" be the same? They are two entirely different
things.
Roger T.
"Greg.P."
>> My model railway is ALL about driving trains, no mindlessly orbiting
>> trains
>> with nobody in control. My trains set out and pick up blocks of cars, a
>> move that in many cases requires the use of two locomotives, one working
>> the
>> head end and one the rear, both at the same time.
>
> Yeah yeah, playing drivers is a different hobby to modelling and operating
> a railway.
> We're accusing each other of the same thing. ;-)
> You're playing engine driver in isolation - I'm playing railway operation.
Greg, do you really have a grasp on what North American prototypical
operation is all about? From your comments, I think not. My crew are not
"playing driver", if anything, from what I gather, that's what you do. You
run multiple passenger units from station to station. Now that's "playing
driver".
My crews, and the crews on other layouts I have operated on, move freight
and passengers using car-cards and waybills. The CC&WBs give routings and
it's up to the crews, as in real life, to forward those cars in the most
expeditious manner using the trains available. Some trains operate to a
time-table, usually just the passengers, but almost all the freight is run
as extras.
On the layouts I have operated, nobody is "playing engine driver in
isolation". We are all part of the railway, moving passengers and freight
in a logical and realistic manner all co-ordianted by a dispatcher and
yardmaster(s). Our trains interchange with each other and we need to
conduct meets and sometimes passes in order for the whole railway to run
efficiantly.
> - I click on the section of track on the diagram I want switched off.
> - you look up stock tables to find loco addresses, input numerous numbers
> and settings and memorise totally non-prototypical strings of commands to
> cause your locos to co-operate with one another and a hand controller.
Nope, just enter the engine number into the throttle and away we go. BTW,
you need to catch up a bit. There's no need to mill any chassises these
days, the decoders are small enough to fit in almost anything. They all fit
easily into all 50 odd of my locos.
> - I click a single switch to link block and controller to run the train.
As do I but you play trains. I run a railroad.
> Unless your track and turnouts move along with the train, why would you
> need a mobile control position for them? ;-)
Because all my operators and the same on other model railways I have
operated, walk around the room following the train they are controlling.
We don't have central control panels where the operator remains all the
time, we follow our trains and line the switches as required, right at the
switch, just like the prototype. Big central control panels went out with
the dinosaur, even when I used straight DC I had walk around panels. I've
never built a single model railway with a central control panel. Not in the
UK and not when I moved to Canada. And I built first layout as a teenager
around 1962 or so. I've always used remote panels and walk-around controls.
At best, we have a local panel (Which these days is more a track diagram
than a control panel) at various stations, yards and junctions, that may
have a few toggle switches that can isolate a track or two, if that's
required. I still use on/off toggles in engine yards and staging tracks for
example, so as to prevent accidental operation of locomotives and or trains
in these locations. After all, humans make mistakes and it's possible for
an operator to dial up engine No.118 instead of engine No.119 where engine
No.118 is in staging. This could have disastrous results. :-)
Anyway, you continue to play trains with your roundy-go-roundy multiple
units and I'll continue to operate the Great Eastern in a prototypical
manner.
Vic Parsons
DCC, and after spending so much money for it. could never get the engines
running, and being anchored to the layout with a long cord. I find it just a
good if not better to run DC and use the block system, my layout is 23x16
feet and 420 feet of track and it works great and has for many years. Keep
on a tracking.
Obnoxious Pratt
> Regards,
> Greg.P.
Procter must have just awakened from a long sleep, as he has been away from the board
for a while. But I see that he is being his usual troll self again, playing semantic
games and trying to goad people into an argument. I am just going to ignore him
since he is not actually adding anything to the body of significant knowledge, or
contributing any useful information to the thread. He is merely amusing himself
reading the rebuttals to his silly pronouncements.
Obnoxious Pratt
Greg.P.
"Obnoxious Pratt" <obno...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:44ecf336...@news.east.earthlink.net...
If there's anyone I enjoy being ignored by, it's you! Please try harder -
better still, why don't you blank my posts?
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg.P.
>
> "Greg.P."
>
>
>> Any layout where the total extent of operation is mindlessly running
>> trains along a track is, IMHO, just "slotcar operation".
>
> But you wrote: -
>
> "Yes, I went back. I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on
> rails.
> ie the layout is not about driving individual trains around tracks but
> about
> numerous trains operating at once to give an impression of the way
> _railways_ operate."
>
> You're contradicting yourself. How can "not driving individual trains"
> and
> "mindlessly running trains" be the same? They are two entirely different
> things.
My being perfect is in _your_ mind, not mine! ;-)
Actually, I'm not entirely sure in what way you see a contradiction.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg.P.
>
> "Greg.P."
>
>>> My model railway is ALL about driving trains, no mindlessly orbiting
>>> trains
>>> with nobody in control. My trains set out and pick up blocks of cars, a
>>> move that in many cases requires the use of two locomotives, one working
>>> the
>>> head end and one the rear, both at the same time.
>>
>> Yeah yeah, playing drivers is a different hobby to modelling and
>> operating
>> a railway.
>
>> We're accusing each other of the same thing. ;-)
>> You're playing engine driver in isolation - I'm playing railway
>> operation.
>
> Greg, do you really have a grasp on what North American prototypical
> operation is all about? From your comments, I think not.
I think I have a reasonable grasp of the subject, after all I've read most
that's been written about the subject over the last 60 years.
My crew are not
> "playing driver", if anything, from what I gather, that's what you do.
So driving trains is not playing driver???
You
> run multiple passenger units from station to station. Now that's "playing
> driver".
You're saying that running one train is not playing driver but running
multiple trains is???
I would consider it "playing signalman".
>
> My crews, and the crews on other layouts I have operated on, move freight
> and passengers using car-cards and waybills. The CC&WBs give routings and
> it's up to the crews, as in real life, to forward those cars in the most
> expeditious manner using the trains available. Some trains operate to a
> time-table, usually just the passengers, but almost all the freight is run
> as extras.
Sure, that's a reasonable way to play, assuming that's what your prototype
did or does.
>
> On the layouts I have operated, nobody is "playing engine driver in
> isolation". We are all part of the railway, moving passengers and freight
> in a logical and realistic manner all co-ordianted by a dispatcher and
> yardmaster(s).
So you can't play "dispatcher" or "yardmaster" etc if you operate alone.
I can.
Our trains interchange with each other and we need to
> conduct meets and sometimes passes in order for the whole railway to run
> efficiantly.
>
Great, _but_ your operation is entirely dependant upon your having
sufficient individual locomotive operators to run each individual train.
That's a very definite restriction of either your system or DCC.
>> - I click on the section of track on the diagram I want switched off.
>> - you look up stock tables to find loco addresses, input numerous numbers
>> and settings and memorise totally non-prototypical strings of commands to
>> cause your locos to co-operate with one another and a hand controller.
>
> Nope, just enter the engine number into the throttle and away we go.
You need (as would I) the locomotive number to be able to do that.
Hence my comment of look-up tables.
BTW,
> you need to catch up a bit. There's no need to mill any chassises these
> days, the decoders are small enough to fit in almost anything. They all
> fit
> easily into all 50 odd of my locos.
I have a collection of locos from the 1970s through to 2006, as do most
modellers who have been in the hobby that long. Many are modified etc so I'm
not going to bin the lot, even if the prototypes I want were available off
the shelf.
>
>> - I click a single switch to link block and controller to run the train.
>
> As do I but you play trains. I run a railroad.
You drive trains - I run a railway. (model :-)
>
>> Unless your track and turnouts move along with the train, why would you
>> need a mobile control position for them? ;-)
>
> Because all my operators and the same on other model railways I have
> operated, walk around the room following the train they are controlling.
So localized turnout control would do the job perfectly!?!
> We don't have central control panels where the operator remains all the
> time, we follow our trains and line the switches as required, right at the
> switch, just like the prototype.
Sounds like you don't know your railroad's operating system!
Big central control panels went out with
> the dinosaur,
Model or prototype???
even when I used straight DC I had walk around panels. I've
> never built a single model railway with a central control panel. Not in
> the
> UK and not when I moved to Canada. And I built first layout as a
> teenager
> around 1962 or so. I've always used remote panels and walk-around
> controls.
>
You're suggesting the UK doesn't have centralized traffic control???
> At best, we have a local panel (Which these days is more a track diagram
> than a control panel) at various stations, yards and junctions, that may
> have a few toggle switches that can isolate a track or two, if that's
> required. I still use on/off toggles in engine yards and staging tracks
> for
> example, so as to prevent accidental operation of locomotives and or
> trains
> in these locations. After all, humans make mistakes and it's possible for
> an operator to dial up engine No.118 instead of engine No.119 where engine
> No.118 is in staging. This could have disastrous results. :-)
>
So we do agree that DCC has limitations better served by block control.
> Anyway, you continue to play trains with your roundy-go-roundy multiple
> units and I'll continue to operate the Great Eastern in a prototypical
> manner.
>
I think we've both just realised that you don't do that!
Regards,
Greg.P.
Roger T.
>> operation is all about? From your comments, I think not.
>
> I think I have a reasonable grasp of the subject, after all I've read most
> that's been written about the subject over the last 60 years.
It doesn't sound like you do.
> My crew are not
>> "playing driver", if anything, from what I gather, that's what you do.
>
> So driving trains is not playing driver???
Well, we are all "playing", are we not?
> You
>> run multiple passenger units from station to station. Now that's
>> "playing
>> driver".
>
> You're saying that running one train is not playing driver but running
> multiple trains is???
>
> I would consider it "playing signalman".
Perhaps, but we run our trains as there is, in many cases, no such thing as
a "signalman". If we do have signalling systems, then it CTC and it's ilk
and that's controlled by a dispatcher who (usually) controls 120 plus miles
of track. Even without signalling, he'll still control 120 plus miles of
track.
>> My crews, and the crews on other layouts I have operated on, move freight
>> and passengers using car-cards and waybills. The CC&WBs give routings
>> and
>> it's up to the crews, as in real life, to forward those cars in the most
>> expeditious manner using the trains available. Some trains operate to a
>> time-table, usually just the passengers, but almost all the freight is
>> run
>> as extras.
>
> Sure, that's a reasonable way to play, assuming that's what your prototype
> did or does.
It does. As do all North American railways other than transit systems.
>> On the layouts I have operated, nobody is "playing engine driver in
>> isolation". We are all part of the railway, moving passengers and
>> freight
>> in a logical and realistic manner all co-ordianted by a dispatcher and
>> yardmaster(s).
>
> So you can't play "dispatcher" or "yardmaster" etc if you operate alone.
> I can.
So can I when I operate alone.
> Our trains interchange with each other and we need to
>> conduct meets and sometimes passes in order for the whole railway to run
>> efficiantly.
>>
>
> Great, _but_ your operation is entirely dependant upon your having
> sufficient individual locomotive operators to run each individual train.
> That's a very definite restriction of either your system or DCC.
It's not a "restriction", it's how we chose to operate our trains, everyone
of them controlled by a human. No automation, no mindless roundy-go-roundy.
>> Nope, just enter the engine number into the throttle and away we go.
>
> You need (as would I) the locomotive number to be able to do that.
> Hence my comment of look-up tables.
I/we don't look up tables, I/we look at the locomoitve and read the number
from there. :-)
>>> - I click a single switch to link block and controller to run the train.
>>
>> As do I but you play trains. I run a railroad.
>
> You drive trains - I run a railway. (model :-)
No, I run a railway that has a purpose and moves passengers and freight for
a reason.
>> Because all my operators and the same on other model railways I have
>> operated, walk around the room following the train they are controlling.
>
> So localized turnout control would do the job perfectly!?!
All my switches are hand operated, at the switch, interlocking, no signals,
switch motors etc., etc..
>> We don't have central control panels where the operator remains all the
>> time, we follow our trains and line the switches as required, right at
>> the
>> switch, just like the prototype.
>
> Sounds like you don't know your railroad's operating system!
Come on, don't be stupid.
> Big central control panels went out with
>> the dinosaur,
>
> Model or prototype???
Model.
> even when I used straight DC I had walk around panels. I've
>> never built a single model railway with a central control panel. Not in
>> the
>> UK and not when I moved to Canada. And I built first layout as a
>> teenager
>> around 1962 or so. I've always used remote panels and walk-around
>> controls.
> You're suggesting the UK doesn't have centralized traffic control???
No I'm not. I said that's what I did. I didn't mention anything else.
>> At best, we have a local panel (Which these days is more a track diagram
>> than a control panel) at various stations, yards and junctions, that may
>> have a few toggle switches that can isolate a track or two, if that's
>> required. I still use on/off toggles in engine yards and staging tracks
>> for
>> example, so as to prevent accidental operation of locomotives and or
>> trains
>> in these locations. After all, humans make mistakes and it's possible
>> for
>> an operator to dial up engine No.118 instead of engine No.119 where
>> engine
>> No.118 is in staging. This could have disastrous results. :-)
>>
> So we do agree that DCC has limitations better served by block control.
No more than DC has under exactly the same circumstances. "WHO HAS MY
TRAIN?" Heard frequently with DC block control systems.
>> Anyway, you continue to play trains with your roundy-go-roundy multiple
>> units and I'll continue to operate the Great Eastern in a prototypical
>> manner.
>
> I think we've both just realised that you don't do that!
Geeze, I operate with time-table and train orders and use car-cards and
waybills to generate freight. Obviously Greg, you don't have a clue what
you are talking about otherwise you wouldn't be making a stupid statement
such as that. I know more about prototype operation than you'd think, from
two continents. I've worked for BR in the UK, as a 16 year old fireman and
for a railway in Canada out of Montreal.
Now, lets hear about your railway experience.
--
Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
You really don't have a clue how real railways work, at least in North
America.
mark_newton
>>> Greg, do you really have a grasp on what North American
>>> prototypical operation is all about? From your comments, I think
>>> not.
>
>> I think I have a reasonable grasp of the subject, after all I've
>> read most that's been written about the subject over the last 60
>> years.
>
> It doesn't sound like you do.
Of course Greg doesn't have a reasonable grasp of the subject . In
previous exchanges he's displayed a profound ignorance of North American
prototype operations. And when he's called on it he either acts the
outraged innocent, or claims that railroads "couldn't possibly operate
in such a fashion as described".
>>> Anyway, you continue to play trains with your roundy-go-roundy
>>> multiple units and I'll continue to operate the Great Eastern in
>>> a prototypical manner.
>>
>> I think we've both just realised that you don't do that!
>
> Geeze, I operate with time-table and train orders and use car-cards
> and waybills to generate freight. Obviously Greg, you don't have a
> clue what you are talking about otherwise you wouldn't be making a
> stupid statement such as that. I know more about prototype operation
> than you'd think, from two continents. I've worked for BR in the UK,
> as a 16 year old fireman and for a railway in Canada out of Montreal.
>
>
> Now, lets hear about your railway experience.
He has *none*. And yet he the effrontery to continually tell those who
*do* have professional operating experience that they don't know what
they're talking about.
mark_newton
> "Frank A. Rosenbaum" <farose...@charter.net> wrote
>> At the club that I belong to, we can have 8 to 10 trains on the
>> mainlines at any one time along with 3 yards.
>
> No blocks? Don't you like prototype operation?
They probably model a prototype that doesn't use model railroad-style
"blocks". But then, with your encyclopaedic knowledge of operating
practices from around the world, you should have realised that...
mark_newton
> -you spend hundreds/thousands of dollars on DCC control systems and
> decoders with a maximum of 5 year life before replacement,
Where did you get this bullshit figure from? What are the decoders you
allege have a maximum operating life of only five years?
> and then spend many hours milling chassis and soldering in decoders,
More bullshit. I have 25 or so locos of my own fitted with decoders,
*NONE* required milling, and only about half required soldering. I've
fitted about twice that number to friends' locos, and never had to go
near a milling machine once.
> more hours setting up CVs and posting queries to news groups asking
> why...
Even more bullshit. My average time setting up CVs would be about 10
minuted per loco, if that. I've *NEVER* posted a query about DCC to a
newsgroup.
> - you look up stock tables to find loco addresses...
Still more bullshit! The loco address is on the loco - it's the loco number.
Greg, I can understand that DCC is not for you. What I can't understand
is why you tell lies about it to discredit those who do use it.
mark_newton
> I've tried DCC - it costs far too much for an established hobbyist
> and loco collection.
LOL! And what, the loco collection cost nothing?
mark_newton
>> Greg, do you really have a grasp on what North American
>> prototypical operation is all about? From your comments, I think
>> not.
>
> I think I have a reasonable grasp of the subject, after all I've read
> most that's been written about the subject over the last 60 years.
You *may* have read it, but it's blindingly obvious that you didn't
comprehend any of what you read.
>>> - I click on the section of track on the diagram I want switched
>>> off. - you look up stock tables to find loco addresses, input
>>> numerous numbers and settings and memorise totally
>>> non-prototypical strings of commands to cause your locos to
>>> co-operate with one another and a hand controller.
>>
>> Nope, just enter the engine number into the throttle and away we
>> go.
>
> You need (as would I) the locomotive number to be able to do that.
> Hence my comment of look-up tables.
Are you for real? Roger's locos have their numbers plainly displayed on
them. North American locos all do. Every railroad in the world puts
numbers/names/identifiers on their locos - even the German railways. Or
are you claiming that your German locos, unlike all other German locos
known to man, don't carry their numbers in at least three locations -
the smokebox door, and the cab sidesheets?
>> We don't have central control panels where the operator remains all
>> the time, we follow our trains and line the switches as required,
>> right at the switch, just like the prototype.
>
> Sounds like you don't know your railroad's operating system!
No, Greg, *you* don't know the railroad's operating system.
>> Big central control panels went out with the dinosaur,
>
> Model or prototype???
Both. In the signalbox at my depot there is a desktop computer which is
used to control all points and signals on 125-odd kilometres of busy,
double-track electrified mainline - and it's already obsolete and due to
be replaced in the next financial year.
mark_newton
> I post such bullshit as a reaction to your (collective as well as
> individual) bullshit.
Well, at least you acknowledge that your posts are bullshit - that's a
start.
> You keep coming up with this "DCC is the ultimate" crap.
Greg, you're lying. I've never once stated anything of the sort.
> It's one form of control that has a lot of advantages and some major
> shortcomings.
And they are?
> DCC isn't the only way to achieve many of the functions available at
> the outputs of loco decoders, but unfortunately most electronics
> producers have jumped on the DCC bandwagon and totally ignored the
> other possibilities.
And they are?
>>> As railways operate by block, with only one train per block...
>>
>> As you have been told *REPEATEDLY*, that is not always the case.
>
> Block control is normal on most railways of the world.
Pig's arse it is. But since you display a profound ignorance of how
railways actually operate, I'm not surprised that you think that. I
notice you didn't address my comment about German operating procedures
allowing more than one train per block, either. Or are you just going to
ignore any evidence that contradicts your position?
>> How many times do you need to be reminded that the operating rules
>> for German railways are not the same as those for other systems in
>> other countries, the USA in particular?
>
> The USa is just one country in the world. You are circa 5% of the
> world's population
No, I'm not. I live in Australia, as I've told you numerous times
before. Pay attention.
> and possibly 1% of the World's railways.
Irrelevant. The majority of posters here are from North America, or
model NA railroads, or both. North American rules and procedures are
what most people posting here are familiar with, or are using. Whether
you choose to accept the fact or not, there is no conflict between using
DCC and operating prototypically in a North American context. Quite the
opposite.
FWIW, there is no conflict between using DCC and operating
prototypically in a German context, either. If you weren't so hung up on
non-prototypical electrical blocks, relays and other arcane frippery,
you'd realise that.
>> How many more times are you going to argue the toss with
>> knowledgable people who run trains for a living???
>>
> My point is and always has been that DCC is a very limiting answer to
> multiple model train control. It appeals to beginners.
How odd, then, that the take-up of DCC seems to be highest amongst
experienced modellers and professional railwaymen...
> Once you settle on that system you limit the potential of model
> railways.
How?
Stein R
@lust.ihug.co.nz:
> "Roger T." <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote in message
> news:100561e60afb6245...@grapevine.islandnet.com...
Okay, so the basic difference *seems* (to me) to be that:
a) to Greg the aspect of real railroad operations most interesting to
model is having trains automatically stop at a red light when a signal
changes to red and automatically start when the signal changes to green.
Basically he is either modelling being a miniature trainspotter
watching trains pass by, or possibly being an ATC operator managing and
assigning time slots on a more or less busy mainline under ATC control.
b) to Roger the aspect of railroading most interesting to model seems to
be picking up and setting out cars, switching, yard activity and stuff
like that.
He will start his train(s) moving when the signal is green (or he gets
a train order authorizing him to continue to some point down the line),
and bring it to a stop when the signal is red or when he gets to the
last point he is authorized to get to.
Essensially he is modelling being one (or more) train crewmembers
operating in a prototypical manner.
Either way is modelling (or playing with trains, if you ask most wives
of people who do model trains :-). You just model different aspects of
railroading, appropriate for different prototypes and/or different eras.
Grin,
Stein
ala...@iinet.net.oz
wrote:
Greg.P. wrote
>My point is and always has been that DCC is a very limiting answer to
>multiple model train control. It appeals to beginners. Once you settle on
>that system you limit the potential of model railways.
G'day Greg,
As I remember from your past posts you have a model
railway basically operated by a computer programme which selects which
relay to activate to operate the block and allow the train to move.
Yours is not a beginners model railway by any means and I admire
your ability to wire multiple blocks with relays and write a
complicated computer programme to control everything so that trains
pop out of your progressive staging and move in accordance with your
timetable. It does what you want, strict timetable operation.
That is not for me. I prefer to build my ( and my club's )
model railways with as little complications as possible. A simple
single bus wire for each electrical power section connected to every
piece of track for electrical reliability.
Both model railways are single track with passing loops and at
the club we have operating sessions with up to 12 trains running at
the same time, 6 in each direction, with trains having to wait in the
passing loop until the train coming from the opposite direction
arrives in the ajacent loop and the section ahead is clear to proceed
to the next loop. This CAN also be done with DC, but not without
VERY COMPLICATED block wiring and manual ( or computer ) electrical
control. Before DCC we could not easily control more than 3 trains
on the railway and could not run 2 trains in opposing directions
towards a passing loop at the same time. One had to be in the loop
with track power off to enable the other to pass through, then wait
until the section behind was clear before proceeding. I know we
could have wired it so that trains could move without clear sections
if we had made about 8 more control blocks, then we may have been able
to run up to 6 trains with lots of block switch flipping to activate
power. Now more members are getting sound equipped locos so we may
have to add another booster and split into 3 power districts with 4
protected sections per district.
Not really desirable as this portable HO layout us due to be
replaced with a much larger fixed layout in about 8 months when the
new fixed OO layout ( under construction with about 4.5 scale miles of
double track ) is running and 80% scenery finished. The staging was
powered up last Monday and all that is required electrically is for
the point motors to be connected to the temporarily mounted fascia
switches and the DCS200 & DB200 connected to the 2 x PS4's per
booster, then the electricians part is finished and the scenery
experts can take over.
To wire this layout to operate as we require would have been
a nightmare and we wiring wallahs refused point blank to have DC block
control unless the chinese fella SUM WUN did it for us.
Good luck, Greg, DC & computer assistance is right for you,
for those who want to get trains running on a new larger layout then
DCC wiring can save months of construction time.
For a small layout with more than one train running at the same
time, DCC is the best way to go as there need not be any electrical
blocks. Switch flicking or wire plugging to control the trains is a
thing of the past. Just advance the throttle and enjoy.
Paul Newhouse
mark_newton <mark_...@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>
> He has *none*. And yet he [has] the effrontery to continually tell
> know what they're talking about.
In his imaginary world you don't know what you're talking about.
It's his fantasy and you don't fit.
PV
>- you spend hundreds/thousands of dollars on DCC control systems and
>decoders with a maximum of 5 year life before replacement, and then spend
What the heck are you talking about? We have several first-generation DCC
decoders (in fact, I think we have a couple ancient MRC decoders) in trains
and running.
Decoders do go bad (most often, on a particulary bad short), but it's very
rare. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Greg.P.
multiple trains without any blocks - most of the world's railways are too
sensible to try such insane practices.
"mark_newton" <mark_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44ED9AC9...@optusnet.com.au...
Greg.P.
of electronics components??? Why?
I am, and have been for the last 35 years, been building up a roster of
locomotives to enable me to run almost anything that ran on my prototype
railway 1918-32.
Why would I want to reduce that roster in favour of a control system that
can't achieve all that my present one does?
You aren't making any sense.
Regards,
Greg.P.
JB/NL
> I agree that DCC is probably the best way to model a railway running
> multiple trains without any blocks - most of the world's railways are too
> sensible to try such insane practices.
Yes, the CTC fad only lasted a few years to be replaced by locally controlled
blocks without any central train location, routing and monitoring centers :)
*sigh* I didn't want to do this, but ...
Greg, I don't know what kind of deeply scarring emotional trauma DCC must
have caused you, but your claims and attempts to discredit it, and the
underlying theory and usage range from the ridiculous to unresearched to the
hilarious.
I've attempted to explain in a previous post that it's not for everyone, that
everyone must make their own choices, that everyone can speak of their
experiences with their own preferred systems, which is good -- it might help
someone make the right choice *for that person* (or even club) but nowhere,
NOWHERE, does that give ANYONE the right (including you) to spread baseless
claims, outright lies and senseless drivel about someone else's choice.
Don't bother following up to, or emailing me about this with another one of
your rants - the last one didn't make any sense - you seem to believe in
block control with such a blinding zeal you are completely unable to
comprehend anything but block control, and treat any other control system as
a reprehensible sin to be excised at any cost.
**PLONK**
JB/NL
Frank, with all the ruckus with Greg "Where's my Block Control" P. , I
noticed I forgot to answer your questions.
>>> What is a center motor car? Is that a mid train helper?
>>
>> My chosen prototype is Japanese multiple unit trains. (Specifically,
>> diesel
>> multiple units of the northernmost island)
>> This means there is no dedicated locomotive, but each car has its own
>> drive
>> train and is, effectively, self-propelled with the entire system linked
>> to the controls in the engineer's cab.
>> Well, ha'ts how the protottype does it.
>> In the models, there's usually one motored car, placed towards the
>> center of the formation. In a 7-car train, the motor car is typically
>> the third or
>> fourth car (this helps with running both ways without too many
>> problems)
>
> OK, let's see if I understand, in each train there is one motor, that is
> one decoder. How many mu sets are you running? is it three?
The problem is there's no chance to run wires from the motored car to the
end cars wih the head/tail lights; his means that for every DMU I run, I'd
have to buy 3 decoders minimum (one for the motor car, one each for the
end cars with the head/tail lights) THat's quite an expense, and wiring
them up is a pain as well.
>> I'm running mostly new models. My chosen era is modern day, but the
>> room problem remains. Given that most cars have large windows and full
>> interiors, hiding a decoder can be next to impossible.
>>
> A Z scale decoder is quite tiny. TCS makes one that is smaller than a
> postage stamp. And it has some functions. If the MU sets are permanently
> coupled, you can run wires through them for lighting, if needs be.
No wires sadly. Most car ends are closed off, and any wires would have to
run visibly through the interior (no underfloor room, rather large
windows!) On top of that, formations aren't fixed - I may run a 3-car
local on one run, then take a car off, couple a mail/baggage 2-car unit
and send it back out. Similarly with the express train - might run as a
set of 4, or a 4+2. Cost an availabiliy are an issue too, sadly.
>> Oh - layout in progress: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tsunami/sorachi/
>
> I got a page could not be found, so I opened the home page and couldn't
> read the language. Do you have another way to get to your page?
OOps! I found out I had been overzealously cleaning up my webspace -- I've
reuploaded the page so it *should* work again - apologies for lack of
updates real life and a whole load of other things started demanding
priority, hopefully this winter I'll get the other two base modules
finished so I can at least run some trains!!)
Hope this helps,
Greg.P.
>>> Greg, do you really have a grasp on what North American prototypical
>>> operation is all about? From your comments, I think not.
>>
>> I think I have a reasonable grasp of the subject, after all I've read
>> most
>> that's been written about the subject over the last 60 years.
>
> It doesn't sound like you do.
I'll admit I don't have a full understanding of what you do, but I'm
reasonably cognisant of what I'm doing with model railways, and of a good
number of prototype railways.
>
>> My crew are not
>>> "playing driver", if anything, from what I gather, that's what you do.
>>
>> So driving trains is not playing driver???
>
> Well, we are all "playing", are we not?
Certainly, but you apparently are playing one specific railway role, whereas
I'm building a system where I can pick from a wide variety of prototypical
roles at any time as the spirit takes me.
>
>> You
>>> run multiple passenger units from station to station. Now that's
>>> "playing
>>> driver".
>>
>> You're saying that running one train is not playing driver but running
>> multiple trains is???
>>
>> I would consider it "playing signalman".
>
> Perhaps, but we run our trains as there is, in many cases, no such thing
> as
> a "signalman". If we do have signalling systems, then it CTC and it's ilk
> and that's controlled by a dispatcher who (usually) controls 120 plus
> miles
> of track. Even without signalling, he'll still control 120 plus miles of
> track.
Yeah yeah, you call your "signalman" a "dispatcher". His system uses
different means of keeping trains apart. Where in the Newsgroups heading
does it say that this group is purely about one railway, in this instant in
time in the USa?
Sure, DCC may well suit your concept of railway control for a specific
railway today, but it doesn't particularly suit other means of railway
operation.
>
>>> My crews, and the crews on other layouts I have operated on, move
>>> freight
>>> and passengers using car-cards and waybills. The CC&WBs give routings
>>> and
>>> it's up to the crews, as in real life, to forward those cars in the most
>>> expeditious manner using the trains available. Some trains operate to a
>>> time-table, usually just the passengers, but almost all the freight is
>>> run
>>> as extras.
>>
>> Sure, that's a reasonable way to play, assuming that's what your
>> prototype
>> did or does.
>
> It does. As do all North American railways other than transit systems.
>
Without intending to be rude, I have to say you don't know much about US
railway operation overall.
>>> On the layouts I have operated, nobody is "playing engine driver in
>>> isolation". We are all part of the railway, moving passengers and
>>> freight
>>> in a logical and realistic manner all co-ordianted by a dispatcher and
>>> yardmaster(s).
>>
>> So you can't play "dispatcher" or "yardmaster" etc if you operate alone.
>> I can.
>
> So can I when I operate alone.
Ok, so how do your trains run, or do you operate periods of time when trains
aren't running?
>
>> Our trains interchange with each other and we need to
>>> conduct meets and sometimes passes in order for the whole railway to run
>>> efficiantly.
>>>
>>
>> Great, _but_ your operation is entirely dependant upon your having
>> sufficient individual locomotive operators to run each individual train.
>> That's a very definite restriction of either your system or DCC.
>
> It's not a "restriction", it's how we chose to operate our trains,
> everyone
> of them controlled by a human. No automation, no mindless
> roundy-go-roundy.
I gather you're assuming I run trains in mindless roundy-go-roundy fashion.
Why?
Is that all you can conceptualize?
As for automation, how else could I replicate numerous train movements at
any given instant?
1- automation of the majority of train movements?
2- have lots of operators?
3- don't replicate the movements?
4- have lots of independent roundy-go-roundy tracks?
I'll be very interested to hear your alternative suggestions, as I've
already discarded the last #3 and #4 as being beneath consideration and made
allowance for #2 as an occassional option.
You, on the other hand seem only to be able to conceptualize #2 and #4,
neither of which would create prototypical operation.
I suggest you look at the main lines out of New York as just one example of
intensively utilized, blocked and signalled US main line operation.
-
>
>>> Nope, just enter the engine number into the throttle and away we go.
>>
>> You need (as would I) the locomotive number to be able to do that.
>> Hence my comment of look-up tables.
>
> I/we don't look up tables, I/we look at the locomoitve and read the number
> from there. :-)
Sure, you just happen to model a railway that has big, easily read numbers
printed on the sides of your locos. Not all railways had such big numbers on
their locos.
I happen to model a railway that had little numbers on the sides and ends of
it's locos and can't read them from more than about 18" away.
There are options available to me, like modelling a different railway,
buying high powered binoculars, painting big numbers on pieces of cardboard
and sticking them on the cab roofs etc, but that sounds to me like a
limitation of DCC.
(check the subject line)
>
>>>> - I click a single switch to link block and controller to run the
>>>> train.
>>>
>>> As do I but you play trains. I run a railroad.
>>
>> You drive trains - I run a railway. (model :-)
>
> No, I run a railway that has a purpose and moves passengers and freight
> for
> a reason.
You've already told me (as does all the DCC blurb) that you drive (a) train
around your roundy-go-round scale model railway representation. Operating a
model railway is about replicating the actions of a system, not a single
train.
>
>>> Because all my operators and the same on other model railways I have
>>> operated, walk around the room following the train they are
>>> controlling.
>>
>> So localized turnout control would do the job perfectly!?!
>
> All my switches are hand operated, at the switch, interlocking, no
> signals,
> switch motors etc., etc..
So you're not modelling the operation of a real railway?
or are you saying I shouldn't?
>
>>> We don't have central control panels where the operator remains all the
>>> time, we follow our trains and line the switches as required, right at
>>> the
>>> switch, just like the prototype.
>>
>> Sounds like you don't know your railroad's operating system!
>
> Come on, don't be stupid.
A basic principle of safe train operation is that the driver doesn't operate
the route setting, other than in _very_ specific circumstances.
Sure, some railways make much/most of their operation to match those very
specific circumstances, but they preclude almost all operation that has more
than two locomotives or trains in restricted space. That's a very limited
form of railway operation.
>
>> Big central control panels went out with
>>> the dinosaur,
>>
>> Model or prototype???
>
> Model.
So the prototype still has them but you avoid modelling them. Why?
Laziness? Inability? Lack of knowledge?
>
>> even when I used straight DC I had walk around panels. I've
>>> never built a single model railway with a central control panel. Not in
>>> the
>>> UK and not when I moved to Canada. And I built first layout as a
>>> teenager
>>> around 1962 or so. I've always used remote panels and walk-around
>>> controls.
>
>> You're suggesting the UK doesn't have centralized traffic control???
>
> No I'm not. I said that's what I did. I didn't mention anything else.
So why don't you model the prototype?
>
>>> At best, we have a local panel (Which these days is more a track diagram
>>> than a control panel) at various stations, yards and junctions, that may
>>> have a few toggle switches that can isolate a track or two, if that's
>>> required. I still use on/off toggles in engine yards and staging tracks
>>> for
>>> example, so as to prevent accidental operation of locomotives and or
>>> trains
>>> in these locations. After all, humans make mistakes and it's possible
>>> for
>>> an operator to dial up engine No.118 instead of engine No.119 where
>>> engine
>>> No.118 is in staging. This could have disastrous results. :-)
>>>
>> So we do agree that DCC has limitations better served by block control.
>
> No more than DC has under exactly the same circumstances. "WHO HAS MY
> TRAIN?" Heard frequently with DC block control systems.
Possibly, but it's no more compulsary than chosing the wrong DCC address.
>
>>> Anyway, you continue to play trains with your roundy-go-roundy multiple
>>> units and I'll continue to operate the Great Eastern in a prototypical
>>> manner.
>>
>> I think we've both just realised that you don't do that!
>
> Geeze, I operate with time-table and train orders and use car-cards and
> waybills to generate freight. Obviously Greg, you don't have a clue what
> you are talking about otherwise you wouldn't be making a stupid statement
> such as that.
If you check my web-site you'll see I have offered and sold car cards etc
for the last 10 years or so. I do know what I'm talking about.
I know more about prototype operation than you'd think, from
> two continents. I've worked for BR in the UK, as a 16 year old fireman
> and
> for a railway in Canada out of Montreal.
So how often did you get out of the cab and set mainline points in the UK?
>
> Now, lets hear about your railway experience.
Sure, I've never been a railway employee, but I've been a keen observer for
55 years. I have friends who are/have been signal engineers, locomotive
engineers (the real sort) drivers, shunters etc. Perhaps I have a wider
range of knowledge than you, if not your depth of knowledge of a very
limited range of tasks.
But this discussion is about trying DCC and rejecting it.
I tried and rejected it because of it's limitations for my specific needs of
operation.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg.P.
However I would direct your attention to the subject line, which is what I
have been attempting to comment on.
DCC fell short of my requirements, but apparently I'm not allowed to mention
the shortcomings of the religion of DCC or the wroth of it's zealots is
brought to bear on me.
Regards,
Greg.P.
PS I also operate "switching" moves etc in addition to watching trains run
by.
My whole point is to have as many forms of operation open to me as possible
so that I can take on any railway role I feel inclined at any given moment
to tackle.
"Stein R" <ste...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9829A9A7...@216.196.109.146...
video guy - www.locoworks.com
Greg.P. wrote:
> "Roger T." <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote in message
> news:ca4069b2999ad891...@grapevine.islandnet.com...
> >>> Greg, do you really have a grasp on what North American prototypical
> >>> operation is all about? From your comments, I think not.
> >><snip repetitive snark>
> But this discussion is about trying DCC and rejecting it.
> I tried and rejected it because of it's limitations for my specific needs of
> operation.
>
> Regards,
> Greg.P.
So are you guys ever going to determine if Certs is a candy mint or if
Certs is a breath mint?
Edward A. Oates
in article 1156457624....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, video guy -
www.locoworks.com at vide...@aol.com wrote on 8/24/06 3:13 PM:
Certs is a birth control pill. The woman holds it between her knees.
--
Ed Oates
http://homepage.mac.com/edoates
DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com
mark_newton
> "Roger T." <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote in message
> news:ca4069b2999ad891...@grapevine.islandnet.com...
>
>>>> Greg, do you really have a grasp on what North American
>>>> prototypical operation is all about? From your comments, I
>>>> think not.
>>>
>>> I think I have a reasonable grasp of the subject, after all I've
>>> read most that's been written about the subject over the last 60
>>> years.
>>
>> It doesn't sound like you do.
>
> I'll admit I don't have a full understanding of what you do, but I'm
> reasonably cognisant of what I'm doing with model railways, and of a
> good number of prototype railways.
Bullshit. You *STILL* can't grasp the fundaments of North American
operation. You've demonstrated that over and over again. I suspect your
understanding of German operations isn't that flash, either.
>>> You're saying that running one train is not playing driver but
>>> running multiple trains is???
>>>
>>> I would consider it "playing signalman".
>>
>> Perhaps, but we run our trains as there is, in many cases, no such
>> thing as a "signalman". If we do have signalling systems, then it
>> CTC and it's ilk and that's controlled by a dispatcher who
>> (usually) controls 120 plus miles of track. Even without
>> signalling, he'll still control 120 plus miles of track.
>
> Yeah yeah, you call your "signalman" a "dispatcher". His system uses
> different means of keeping trains apart.
You're displaying your ignorance again. A dispatcher and a signalman are
two entirely separate and unrelated roles.
> Sure, DCC may well suit your concept of railway control for a
> specific railway today, but it doesn't particularly suit other means
> of railway operation.
Really? Why not? How is it then that prototype modellers around the
world use DCC to replicate a variety of safeworking/rules/operating
systems? Could it be they know more than you?
>>>> My crews, and the crews on other layouts I have operated on,
>>>> move freight and passengers using car-cards and waybills. The
>>>> CC&WBs give routings and it's up to the crews, as in real life,
>>>> to forward those cars in the most expeditious manner using the
>>>> trains available. Some trains operate to a time-table, usually
>>>> just the passengers, but almost all the freight is run as
>>>> extras.
>>>
>>> Sure, that's a reasonable way to play, assuming that's what your
>>> prototype did or does.
>>
>> It does. As do all North American railways other than transit
>> systems.
>
> Without intending to be rude, I have to say you don't know much about
> US railway operation overall.
I'll happily be rude - you're the one who "don't know much about US
railway operation overall". What part of Roger's statement do you
dispute? Be prepared to back up your reply with facts...
> Sure, you just happen to model a railway that has big, easily read
> numbers printed on the sides of your locos. Not all railways had such
> big numbers on their locos. I happen to model a railway that had
> little numbers on the sides and ends of it's locos and can't read
> them from more than about 18" away.
So? Get some reading glasses!
> There are options available to me, like modelling a different
> railway, buying high powered binoculars, painting big numbers on
> pieces of cardboard and sticking them on the cab roofs etc, but that
> sounds to me like a limitation of DCC.
You poor blind bastard - your inability to read little numbers from
further away from 18" is a limtation of your eyesight, not DCC!
> You've already told me (as does all the DCC blurb) that you drive (a)
> train around your roundy-go-round scale model railway
> representation. Operating a model railway is about replicating the
> actions of a system, not a single train.
Just how thick are you? That's *why* Roger has provision for multiple
operators, uses prototypical paperwork, crosses and interchanges trains
- he's replicating the actions of a railroad system!
>>>> We don't have central control panels where the operator remains
>>>> all the time, we follow our trains and line the switches as
>>>> required, right at the switch, just like the prototype.
>>>
>>> Sounds like you don't know your railroad's operating system!
>>
>> Come on, don't be stupid.
>
> A basic principle of safe train operation is that the driver doesn't
> operate the route setting, other than in _very_ specific
> circumstances.
Idiot. In all sorts of circumstances, on railroads all over the world,
on main lines and branches, train crew set routes. They've done so since
the dawn of railways. You're displaying your ignorance *yet* again.
> Sure, some railways make much/most of their operation to match those
> very specific circumstances, but they preclude almost all operation
> that has more than two locomotives or trains in restricted space.
Sigh. You're displaying your ignorance *yet* again.
> Sure, I've never been a railway employee, but I've been a keen
> observer for 55 years. I have friends who are/have been signal
> engineers, locomotive engineers (the real sort) drivers, shunters
> etc. Perhaps I have a wider range of knowledge than you
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Only a complete and utter drongo would believe that...
mark_newton
> Thanks Stein. However I would direct your attention to the subject
> line, which is what I have been attempting to comment on. DCC fell
> short of my requirements, but apparently I'm not allowed to mention
> the shortcomings of the religion of DCC or the wroth of it's zealots
> is brought to bear on me.
You cop a flogging because you're a liar who deliberately distorts and
misrepresents the facts to support your position, and then post futher
distortions when you get called on it, nothing more.
mark_newton
> "mark_newton" <mark_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:44EDA02A...@optusnet.com.au...
>>
>>> I've tried DCC - it costs far too much for an established
>>> hobbyist and loco collection.
>>
>> LOL! And what, the loco collection cost nothing?
>>
> Are you suggesting I should give up my model railway locomotives in
> favour of electronics components???
I'm suggesting that the cost of DCC is a subjective figure. You knew that.
Roger T.
No matter what one writes, he puts his twist onto it.
Greg is the all knowing God of model railroading.
He claims to know all yet knows nothing, as his replies indicate.
As will all Gods, there's only one way to treat them.
PLONK!
Obnoxious Pratt
>
>"mark_newton" <mark_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:44EBDEEE...@optusnet.com.au...
>> Greg.P. wrote:
>>
>> > I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the
>> > layout is not about driving individual trains around tracks but about
>> > numerous trains operating at once to give an impression of the way
>> > _railways_ operate.
>>
>> I wondered how long it would be before you started posting this
>> nonsensical bullshit again.
>>
>
>I post such bullshit as a reaction to your (collective as well as
>individual) bullshit.
Mark is not the one posting bullshit, you are. Not only that, but everyone reading
this group has become keenly aware of that.
>You keep coming up with this "DCC is the ultimate" crap. It's one form of
>control that has a lot of advantages and some major shortcomings.
>DCC isn't the only way to achieve many of the functions available at the
>outputs of loco decoders, but unfortunately most electronics producers have
>jumped on the DCC bandwagon and totally ignored the other possibilities.
That's because the "other possibilities"- namely direct current- controlling the
tracks under the trains instead of the actual trains- has reached its limit of
practical development. One can do many things with DC to mimic some of the features
of DCC, but at great cost in time, money and engineering input. There is no point in
doing that when one can get all that DC offers and more right out of the box with a
top-shelf DCC system. Reading the tripe you write one gets the idea that you believe
that your old manual typewriter can do everything a modern, computerized word
processing program can do. That is rubbish, and so are your anti-DCC rantings.
Listening to you prattle about prototypical working is a joke. Either you do not have
a clue, or you are pretending not to have one. In either case, you are coming across
like an absolutely clueless individual. There are several of us subscribing to this
group who are, or have been, professional railroaders, myself among them. We have
told you that you don't know what you are talking about, and you respond that, yes
you do, it is us that are incorrect and clueless. When I read your post stating
that; while you do not actually have any real working on the railroad experience,
you have read a lot about it and know several people who do, or who have worked on
the railroad, I almost sprayed a mouthful of Coca-Cola out onto the keyboard and
video screen. Did you mean that as a joke, or were you actually serious?
Do you think that those of us who earn a living working on the railroad live in a
vacuum? Do you think we can spend decades working as groundsmen, engine drivers,
signalmen, trainmasters, yardmasters, leading engine drivers, dispatchers and so on,
and not know all about how a real railway operates? Do you think that those of the
aforementioned group who are interested enough to be model railroaders have not
accrued additional railway knowledge through reading, study, and observation to go
along with their own first-hand experience? Do you think that I am incapable of
operating my model railway with DCC in exactly the same fashion that my chosen
prototype did? If you do, then you are an arrogant ass to be sure.
>
>
>> > As railways operate by block, with only one train per block...
>>
>> As you have been told *REPEATEDLY*, that is not always the case.
>
>Block control is normal on most railways of the world.
>
>>How
>> many times do you need to be reminded that the operating rules for
>> German railways are not the same as those for other systems in other
>> countries, the USA in particular?
>
>The USa is just one country in the world. You are circa 5% of the world's
>population and possibly 1% of the World's railways.
>
>> How many more times are you going to
>> argue the toss with knowledgable people who run trains for a living???
>>
>
>My point is and always has been that DCC is a very limiting answer to
>multiple model train control. It appeals to beginners. Once you settle on
>that system you limit the potential of model railways.
>
>Regards,
>Greg.P.
Your intransigence and your abyssal lack of knowledge about railway operation is
amusing.
Almost as amusing as your pathetic attempts to discredit DCC and all those who use
it. You said that I should killfile you. Ah, but I won't do that, because you amuse
me and I am one of the few who genuinely irritate you. You are sorely lacking in
knowledge about railway operations in the real world, and even more sorely lacking in
knowledge regarding prototypical operation of model railways. You have, so far, got
yourself PLONKED by two subscribers to this group by virtue of your ignorant
rantings. I will not be number three. I rather enjoy seeing you get your ass roasted
by the likes of Roger and Mark. I am sorry that Roger killfiled you as it was
amusing to read him rake you over the coals. I shall miss that. If you knew what
you were talking about it would be different, but you pontificate from a point of
utter ignorance, so you deserve to get raked over the coals.
Regards,
Obnoxious Pratt
Greg.P.
It's a very large figure that would need to come out of my wallet.
Figure 100 locos at circa $60- each, plus a control system and hand-helds;
we've reached $7000- without any change. Fitting the decoders would be a
year's work, setting the CVs another year ...
Five years after starting, technology would have moved so far that I would
be compelled to replace all the decoders.
Meanwhile, I would have a control system that wouldn't do what I need of it.
Greg.P.
"video guy - www.locoworks.com" <vide...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156457624....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Regards,
Greg.P.
Jon Miller
That explains it all <VBG>!
Greg.P.
> Greg.P. wrote:
>
> > "Roger T." <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote in message
> > news:ca4069b2999ad891...@grapevine.islandnet.com...
> >
> >>>> Greg, do you really have a grasp on what North American
> >>>> prototypical operation is all about? From your comments, I
> >>>> think not.
> >>>
> >>> I think I have a reasonable grasp of the subject, after all I've
> >>> read most that's been written about the subject over the last 60
> >>> years.
> >>
> >> It doesn't sound like you do.
> >
> > I'll admit I don't have a full understanding of what you do, but I'm
> > reasonably cognisant of what I'm doing with model railways, and of a
> > good number of prototype railways.
>
> Bullshit. You *STILL* can't grasp the fundaments of North American
> operation. You've demonstrated that over and over again.
Exactly what has North American operation got to do with anything?
I suspect your
> understanding of German operations isn't that flash, either.
Yeah yeah, would you like a list of all the things I suspect you of?
>
> >>> You're saying that running one train is not playing driver but
> >>> running multiple trains is???
> >>>
> >>> I would consider it "playing signalman".
> >>
> >> Perhaps, but we run our trains as there is, in many cases, no such
> >> thing as a "signalman". If we do have signalling systems, then it
> >> CTC and it's ilk and that's controlled by a dispatcher who
> >> (usually) controls 120 plus miles of track. Even without
> >> signalling, he'll still control 120 plus miles of track.
> >
> > Yeah yeah, you call your "signalman" a "dispatcher". His system uses
> > different means of keeping trains apart.
>
> You're displaying your ignorance again. A dispatcher and a signalman are
> two entirely separate and unrelated roles.
Sheesh! You just explained to me that the task done by a European/
British/New Zealand is done in the US by a "dispatcher". I know their tasks
aren't precisely the same, but I went along with you.
>
> > Sure, DCC may well suit your concept of railway control for a
> > specific railway today, but it doesn't particularly suit other means
> > of railway operation.
>
> Really? Why not?
You aren't following my points of discussion but seem intent on setting
"dispatcher" type traps and then lambasting me for stepping into them. I've
explained numerous times where the limitations of DCC don't match my
requirements.
Would you like me to spell them out to you again?
How is it then that prototype modellers around the
> world use DCC to replicate a variety of safeworking/rules/operating
> systems? Could it be they know more than you?
>
Perhaps, or perhaps they are playing trains like you are ie, not in the
manner used by the majority of the World's railways.
> >>>> My crews, and the crews on other layouts I have operated on,
> >>>> move freight and passengers using car-cards and waybills. The
> >>>> CC&WBs give routings and it's up to the crews, as in real life,
> >>>> to forward those cars in the most expeditious manner using the
> >>>> trains available. Some trains operate to a time-table, usually
> >>>> just the passengers, but almost all the freight is run as
> >>>> extras.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, that's a reasonable way to play, assuming that's what your
> >>> prototype did or does.
> >>
> >> It does. As do all North American railways other than transit
> >> systems.
> >
> > Without intending to be rude, I have to say you don't know much about
> > US railway operation overall.
>
> I'll happily be rude - you're the one who "don't know much about US
> railway operation overall". What part of Roger's statement do you
> dispute? Be prepared to back up your reply with facts...
I dispute that DCC is a purely US model train operating system, or that this
discussion (see subject line) is purely about US operation.
>
> > Sure, you just happen to model a railway that has big, easily read
> > numbers printed on the sides of your locos. Not all railways had such
> > big numbers on their locos. I happen to model a railway that had
> > little numbers on the sides and ends of it's locos and can't read
> > them from more than about 18" away.
>
> So? Get some reading glasses!
You just don't get it, do you.
Why, why would I want to go to the hastle of specifically identifying every
individual locomotive that passes through my operating section of track? On
my prototype and model the _train_ is identified. It's normal block
operating protocol. The identity of the loco or locos is basically
irrelevant.
>
> > There are options available to me, like modelling a different
> > railway, buying high powered binoculars, painting big numbers on
> > pieces of cardboard and sticking them on the cab roofs etc, but that
> > sounds to me like a limitation of DCC.
>
> You poor blind bastard - your inability to read little numbers from
> further away from 18" is a limtation of your eyesight, not DCC!
>
Very true - I suffer from 20/20 vision.
Whatever, I can't guarentee to read the numbers correctly and even if I
could I shouldn't have to. That would be DCC forcing me into a mode of
operation contrary to prototype operation.
> > You've already told me (as does all the DCC blurb) that you drive (a)
> > train around your roundy-go-round scale model railway
> > representation. Operating a model railway is about replicating the
> > actions of a system, not a single train.
>
> Just how thick are you?
Not particularly. And you?
That's *why* Roger has provision for multiple
> operators, uses prototypical paperwork, crosses and interchanges trains
> - he's replicating the actions of a railroad system!
So using DCC forces Roger into having multiple operators. Obviously without
multiple operators he can't operate his railway prototypically. That's a
limitation of DCC I wasn't prepared to accept.
Just how thick are you?
>
> >>>> We don't have central control panels where the operator remains
> >>>> all the time, we follow our trains and line the switches as
> >>>> required, right at the switch, just like the prototype.
> >>>
> >>> Sounds like you don't know your railroad's operating system!
> >>
> >> Come on, don't be stupid.
> >
> > A basic principle of safe train operation is that the driver doesn't
> > operate the route setting, other than in _very_ specific
> > circumstances.
>
> Idiot. In all sorts of circumstances, on railroads all over the world,
> on main lines and branches, train crew set routes. They've done so since
> the dawn of railways. You're displaying your ignorance *yet* again.
No they don't. They become manual workers who change routes as prescribed by
'dispatchers'.
In no sane operating system would drivers make the decisions as to route
settings because they don't have access to the information to make those
decisions.
>
> > Sure, some railways make much/most of their operation to match those
> > very specific circumstances, but they preclude almost all operation
> > that has more than two locomotives or trains in restricted space.
>
> Sigh. You're displaying your ignorance *yet* again.
So you can point me to information showing where _drivers_ make decisions
about route setting in multi-train situations?
>
> > Sure, I've never been a railway employee, but I've been a keen
> > observer for 55 years. I have friends who are/have been signal
> > engineers, locomotive engineers (the real sort) drivers, shunters
> > etc. Perhaps I have a wider range of knowledge than you
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> Only a complete and utter drongo would believe that...
And yet you believe it - ok.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg.P.
> Greg.P. wrote:
>
> > Thanks Stein. However I would direct your attention to the subject
> > line, which is what I have been attempting to comment on. DCC fell
> > short of my requirements, but apparently I'm not allowed to mention
> > the shortcomings of the religion of DCC or the wroth of it's zealots
> > is brought to bear on me.
>
> You cop a flogging because you're a liar
I'd be very interested to know how you reach that conclusion!
who deliberately distorts and
> misrepresents the facts to support your position,
You can quote facts that I have distorted?
and then post futher
> distortions when you get called on it, nothing more.
I'm sure you can back your accusations, otherwise you have just shown
yourself to be a foul mouthed liar.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg.P.
> Greg.P. wrote:
>
> > -you spend hundreds/thousands of dollars on DCC control systems and
> > decoders with a maximum of 5 year life before replacement,
>
When I started in DCC decoders were costing me around $60- each.
What are the decoders you
> allege have a maximum operating life of only five years?
Just how wet behind the ears are you? Look at the advances in decoder
technology:
- originally they were 14 speed step, set minimum and maximum speed plus
lights on/off. 16 addresses.
- accelleration and deacceleration settings.
- 80 addresses.
- ditto plus function output.
- 28 step.
- 4 function.
- speed mapping.
- extra lighting functions.
- extra addresses
- 128 speed step.
- etc.
- sound.
- multiple loco control.
-
These have been individual improvements, many of which would have caused me
to upgrade.
I can assure you that 16 address, 14 speed step, max/min speed and lights
on/off wouldn't be acceptable to me today.
>
> > and then spend many hours milling chassis and soldering in decoders,
>
> More bullshit. I have 25 or so locos of my own fitted with decoders,
> *NONE* required milling, and only about half required soldering. I've
> fitted about twice that number to friends' locos, and never had to go
> near a milling machine once.
Yeah yeah, you buy cheap plastic locos with lots of empty space inside - I
don't.
>
> > more hours setting up CVs and posting queries to news groups asking
> > why...
>
> Even more bullshit. My average time setting up CVs would be about 10
> minuted per loco, if that. I've *NEVER* posted a query about DCC to a
> newsgroup.
Try looking on the DCC newsgroups - they are filled with people asking about
CVs, dead decoders and the like.
>
> > - you look up stock tables to find loco addresses...
>
> Still more bullshit! The loco address is on the loco - it's the loco
> number.
I can't guarentee to be able to read the loco number - half my layout is
hidden staging yards.
I could of course have designed my layout differently to accomodate DCC, but
that would be DCC driving the design of my layout, if you can see the
stupidity of that.
>
> Greg, I can understand that DCC is not for you. What I can't understand
> is why you tell lies about it to discredit those who do use it.
>
What I can't understand is what you see of my postings as lies, and why you
don't declare DCC a religion and take the potential tax breaks that that
would offer.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg.P.
> Greg.P. wrote:
>
> > I post such bullshit as a reaction to your (collective as well as
> > individual) bullshit.
>
> Well, at least you acknowledge that your posts are bullshit - that's a
> start.
We're discussing a hobby or passtime that has almost no relevance in the big
wide world - or did I miss the annual model railway Oscar prize night? ;-)
>
> > You keep coming up with this "DCC is the ultimate" crap.
>
> Greg, you're lying. I've never once stated anything of the sort.
>
So why exactly are you continuing to attack me for stating that I am one of
those who fit the subject line? The original poster asked a question and I
responded.
Quite simply, DCC has operating limitations. If you never come up against
them then that's nice, but don't rubbish people who do.
> > It's one form of control that has a lot of advantages and some major
> > shortcomings.
>
> And they are?
Sigh!
- one is forced to identify individual locos to be able to operate them.
- all one's loco roster needs conversion at once for DCC to be used.
- one needs to drive every locomotive.
- cost.
>
> > DCC isn't the only way to achieve many of the functions available at
> > the outputs of loco decoders, but unfortunately most electronics
> > producers have jumped on the DCC bandwagon and totally ignored the
> > other possibilities.
>
> And they are?
Hmmm:
- constant lighting was the biggy when I started into electronics.
(1960s-70s) It's easily achieved in a number of well defined ways.
- switchable constant lighting. Add-on to the above.
- sound - see Puget Sound system. (c 1970)
- speed setting/mapping. Either onboard or within controller.
A "decoder" within an analogue controlled loco is quite practical, capable
of speed mapping and light/function switching. There's something like it
reviewed in one of the US mags very recently.
>
> >>> As railways operate by block, with only one train per block...
> >>
> >> As you have been told *REPEATEDLY*, that is not always the case.
> >
> > Block control is normal on most railways of the world.
>
> Pig's arse it is. But since you display a profound ignorance of how
> railways actually operate, I'm not surprised that you think that. I
> notice you didn't address my comment about German operating procedures
> allowing more than one train per block, either. Or are you just going to
> ignore any evidence that contradicts your position?
>
You making an unsubstanciated comment doesn't amount to evidence.
Yes, there are situations where a train may move forward into an occupied
block in Germany, but they are very specific circumstances.
> >> How many times do you need to be reminded that the operating rules
> >> for German railways are not the same as those for other systems in
> >> other countries, the USA in particular?
About as frequently as you need reminding that the World is not the USa.
> >
> > The USa is just one country in the world. You are circa 5% of the
> > world's population
>
> No, I'm not. I live in Australia, as I've told you numerous times
> before. Pay attention.
I tend to assimilate information about people I like or agree with or who
show themselves worth of respect.
>
> > and possibly 1% of the World's railways.
>
> Irrelevant. The majority of posters here are from North America, or
> model NA railroads, or both.
a: where in "rec.models.railroad" does it say "USA"?
b: where does it say DCC only relates to the USA?
North American rules and procedures are
> what most people posting here are familiar with, or are using.
Wow, let's not confuse people with alternatives!
Whether
> you choose to accept the fact or not, there is no conflict between using
> DCC and operating prototypically in a North American context. Quite the
> opposite.
Sorry, but there are US railroads that use or have used block control.
There are US modellers who use hidden staging yards.
There were US railroads that didn't paint 3 foot high reporting numbers on
their locos.
>
> FWIW, there is no conflict between using DCC and operating
> prototypically in a German context, either. If you weren't so hung up on
> non-prototypical electrical blocks, relays and other arcane frippery,
> you'd realise that.
>
> >> How many more times are you going to argue the toss with
> >> knowledgable people who run trains for a living???
> >>
> > My point is and always has been that DCC is a very limiting answer to
> > multiple model train control. It appeals to beginners.
>
> How odd, then, that the take-up of DCC seems to be highest amongst
> experienced modellers and professional railwaymen...
Life is odd.
Peter W.
is so good to see that everybody is so eager to argue about pretty much
anything. Nothing is better than a healthy remote, non-real-time
argument
Seeing how this goes on just about modeling choices no wonder we can't
have any world peace (sorry, I needed to throw this one in).
Carry on ....
Peteski
Obnoxious Pratt
>
>"mark_newton" <mark_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:44EE3467...@optusnet.com.au...
>> Greg.P. wrote:
>>
>> > "mark_newton" <mark_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> > news:44EDA02A...@optusnet.com.au...
>> >>
>> >>> I've tried DCC - it costs far too much for an established
>> >>> hobbyist and loco collection.
>> >>
>> >> LOL! And what, the loco collection cost nothing?
>> >>
>> > Are you suggesting I should give up my model railway locomotives in
>> > favour of electronics components???
>>
>> I'm suggesting that the cost of DCC is a subjective figure. You knew that.
>>
>
>It's a very large figure that would need to come out of my wallet.
>Figure 100 locos at circa $60- each, plus a control system and hand-helds;
>we've reached $7000- without any change. Fitting the decoders would be a
>year's work, setting the CVs another year ...
>Five years after starting, technology would have moved so far that I would
>be compelled to replace all the decoders.
>Meanwhile, I would have a control system that wouldn't do what I need of it.
>
>
Bullshit! What a crock of rubbish!
Regards,
Obnoxious Pratt
Stein R
news:ecl64p$6pe$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz:
> Thanks Stein.
> However I would direct your attention to the subject line, which is
> what I have been attempting to comment on.
> DCC fell short of my requirements, but apparently I'm not allowed to
> mention the shortcomings of the religion of DCC or the wroth of it's
> zealots is brought to bear on me.
I suspect that what you are getting irrate replies because you make
rather sweeping claims with little or nothing to back up your claims.
By all means - you don't like DCC. Fine. No problem. You think the
extra of going DCC is not matched by enough extra capability to offset
the cost - to you. Again fine. No problem.
Where you go off the tracks is when you start making claims like
(paraphrased) : "only way of modelling the way real life railroads
assign time slots to trains on a busy line is to cut the model RR tracks
into separate electrical blocks".
Just because one uses the word "block" both in the sentence "separate
electical district on a model RR" and "part of a RR line between two
signals in real life", it does not follow that the *only* way to model
prototypical practices is to wire each section of rail as a separate
*electrical* blocks.
> PS I also operate "switching" moves etc in addition to watching trains
> run by.
> My whole point is to have as many forms of operation open to me as
> possible so that I can take on any railway role I feel inclined at any
> given moment to tackle.
Which is exactly the same as DCC. What role you want to play is not
dependent on how you decide which trains will move and how fast. You can
play train driver just as well with a DC layout as a DCC layout. You
turn a knob on your controller to adjust speed and possibly direction.
Only difference in principle is how you select which train or trains
your controller controls.
Grin,
Stein
PV
>When I started in DCC decoders were costing me around $60- each.
Maybe this is geographical, but as I mentioned, we've been using DCC since
it came out, and the first decoders bought (still have the receipts in a
'never add this up' drawer) were about $30US. With a little shopping around
and possibly a bulk buy, you can get decoders for $15US. It's just not a
significant factor when compared to the cost of a quality engine.
>Just how wet behind the ears are you? Look at the advances in decoder
>technology:
>- originally they were 14 speed step, set minimum and maximum speed plus
>lights on/off. 16 addresses.
And they still work. You said "5 years MAXIMUM" as if they burst into flame
on that date. They don't. 14 speed step decoders are terrible by today's
standards, but they work fine, and they're the perfect thing to repurpose
for your older and not frequently run engines.
>Yeah yeah, you buy cheap plastic locos with lots of empty space inside - I
>don't.
How much is "lots"? Most decoders these days are tiny, or even better,
simply replace the light board and have no footprint in the engine
at all.
>Try looking on the DCC newsgroups - they are filled with people asking about
>CVs, dead decoders and the like.
And no DC engine ever breaks? Preparing a new decoder for use takes a few
seconds if all you need to do is set the address. If you want to get
fancier, you use something like a SPROG and JMRI to run a test setup off of
a PC. After a while you develop a bunch of configuration files to cover all
your setup issues, and if you ever DO need to replace a decoder, you just
drop the new engine on the track and clone the old settings from the last
time you programmed. It's easy.
>I can't guarentee to be able to read the loco number - half my layout is
>hidden staging yards.
And you just blindly turn on the power in those yards, counting on
remembering what DC engines you left parked in there? Of course you don't.
The simple fact is that you can perform any functions you can do on a DC
layout on a DCC one. Sometimes it's easier on a DCC layout, sometimes it's
harder. But there are plenty of things you can do on a DCC layout that you
can NEVER do on a DC one. If those things aren't important to you, stick
with DC. *
P.S. Please do not 'courtesy email' posts to the newsgroup. It's obnoxious.
Paul Newhouse
Obnoxious Pratt <obno...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:41:28 -0700, "Greg.P." <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>>"mark_newton" <mark_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:44EE3467...@optusnet.com.au...
>>> Greg.P. wrote:
>>>
>>> > "mark_newton" <mark_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>> > news:44EDA02A...@optusnet.com.au...
>>> >>
>>> >>> I've tried DCC - it costs far too much for an established
>>> >>> hobbyist and loco collection.
>>> >>
>>> >> LOL! And what, the loco collection cost nothing?
>>> >>
>>> > Are you suggesting I should give up my model railway locomotives in
>>> > favour of electronics components???
>>>
>>> I'm suggesting that the cost of DCC is a subjective figure. You knew that.
>>>
>>
>>It's a very large figure that would need to come out of my wallet.
>>Figure 100 locos at circa $60- each, plus a control system and hand-helds;
>>we've reached $7000- without any change. Fitting the decoders would be a
>>year's work,
>> setting the CVs another year ...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!! Greg should know how long it would
take him to do this. Nevermind it wouldn't take most people any where
near that long.
>>Five years after starting, technology would have moved so far that I would
>>be compelled to replace all the decoders.
>>Meanwhile, I would have a control system that wouldn't do what I need of it.
>>
>>
> Bullshit! What a crock of rubbish!
Yes but, that's just who Greg is. He's been in my kill file for a long
time now.
Paul
--
The lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now.
Modular furniture is cruel and unusual.
video guy - www.locoworks.com
> > So are you guys ever going to determine if Certs is a candy mint or if
> > Certs is a breath mint?
> >
> Never heard of "Certs".
>
> Regards,
> Greg.P.
Then do you like Bud Lite because it's less filling, or because it
tastes great?
Edward A. Oates
www.locoworks.com at vide...@aol.com wrote on 8/25/06 10:12 AM:
Bud Lite is a birth control device. It tastes so bad that she'll never
drink enough of it to let you any where near her ;-)
Greg.P.
The subject line defines the question.
An implied question is " why did you give up on DCC?"
I tried to answer those two questions in an honest manner.
In response I've been told that:
- I'm wrong, (very odd as I was refering to my personal experiences)
- that I don't know anything about US railroad operations (again odd as I
don't model US railroad operations)
- that I'm a liar. (wierd, unless some of you reside in my mind).
I'm quite happy to discuss DCC vs DC but I'm getting pissed off at having my
integrity and knowledge questioned.
Roger T for example just sent me a long e-mail and finished it by telling me
he has blanked me - fine, but why send a discussive email if he doesn't want
a response?
Both DC and DCC have limitations, different limitations.
DC didn't do what I want so I investigated DCC. It cost vastly more and
didn't do what I wanted on one of my three layouts so I rejected it.
As to US/North American operation, this has existed for circa 180 years now
and has _never_ had one overall operating system. Some parts of the system
operate block systems just like those of Europe, some used the Tyler token
system as was used here in New Zealand c1890-1970 etc etc.
Regards,
Greg.P.
New Zealand.
Greg.P.
"Obnoxious Pratt" <obno...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:44ee83ad...@news.east.earthlink.net...
I'll take that as an obnoxious insult from an ignorant and uninformed
bnoxious ratt.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg.P.
"Jon Miller" <at...@inow.com> wrote in message
news:12espu5...@corp.supernews.com...
> >Never heard of "Certs".<
>
> That explains it all <VBG>!
>
I'm completely unaware of any DCC product called "Certs".
Greg.P.
I prefer proper beer, not that crap yank gnats piss.
Greg.P.
"Edward A. Oates" <nowayedo...@unearthlylink.net> wrote in message
news:C1148EEE.222CF%nowayedo...@unearthlylink.net...
Greg.P.
I suspect I'm getting irate replies because I attempted to give a factual
reply to the original question and that the respondees aren't smart enough
to comprehend that the reply related to my experiences but instead see them
as an attack on their religion.
>
> By all means - you don't like DCC. Fine. No problem. You think the
> extra of going DCC is not matched by enough extra capability to offset
> the cost - to you. Again fine. No problem.
Thank you!
>
> Where you go off the tracks is when you start making claims like
> (paraphrased) : "only way of modelling the way real life railroads
> assign time slots to trains on a busy line is to cut the model RR tracks
> into separate electrical blocks".
>
I was talking about my modelling/prototype.
Around the 1870s those railways that ran relatively intensive services
realized that "time slots" didn't keep trains safely separated and so
instituted other means of separating them.
> Just because one uses the word "block" both in the sentence "separate
> electical district on a model RR" and "part of a RR line between two
> signals in real life", it does not follow that the *only* way to model
> prototypical practices is to wire each section of rail as a separate
> *electrical* blocks.
>
The whole point of signals is to keep trains separated.
Certainly it isn't the only way, but if you're going to have signals and
train detection and independent *electrical* ;-) blocks then ...why bother
doing it some other way.
>> PS I also operate "switching" moves etc in addition to watching trains
>> run by.
>> My whole point is to have as many forms of operation open to me as
>> possible so that I can take on any railway role I feel inclined at any
>> given moment to tackle.
>
> Which is exactly the same as DCC.
DCC (and DC) would seem irrelevant to that particular point.
What role you want to play is not
> dependent on how you decide which trains will move and how fast. You can
> play train driver just as well with a DC layout as a DCC layout. You
> turn a knob on your controller to adjust speed and possibly direction.
True.
>
> Only difference in principle is how you select which train or trains
> your controller controls.
Very true. However I (probably) wrote the above quotes in relation to
whether or not automatic loco driving was relevant to operation.
I use automatic loco control in an attempt to achieve multiple train
movements on my layout. (that's trains moving from a hidden staging yard,
through a section of visible signal blocked main line to my main station) My
prototype was a heavily trafficked main line section where the train
movement capacity was always at it's limit, so one operator/one train would
be a physical impracticability. There wouldn't be space for that number of
operators to stand in front of the layout, and as each train appears once
(or twice) in an operating session and then returns to the staging yard.
Amongst this organised mahem I can take a task such as running the local
goods, picking up and setting down wagons at each industry while threading
through the mix of suburban commuter trains, medium and long distance
passenger and goods trains.
DCC didn't add enough advantages to offset the inherent disadvantages, _in
my situation_.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Erik Olsen
>>
>> Then do you like Bud Lite because it's less filling, or because it
>> tastes great?
>
> I prefer proper beer, not that crap yank gnats piss.
Is it that bad? I never tasted the stuff, perhaps it's no better than
Danish Carlsberg Pilsner, bvadr.
In Denmark, quite a few micro breweries have started making special beer
that is quite good. For quite some years, I mostly drank beer from
Belgium that can be had in Denmark for a decent price, but some of the
new micro breweries indeed look promising. Problem is that it often can
only be bought locally.
--
Venlig hilsen
Erik Olsen
http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/
Greg.P.
<ala...@iinet.net.oz> wrote in message
news:8pire29g56930p9vq...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:15:45 -0700, "Greg.P." <pro...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
> Greg.P. wrote
>>My point is and always has been that DCC is a very limiting answer to
>>multiple model train control. It appeals to beginners. Once you settle on
>>that system you limit the potential of model railways.
>
> G'day Greg,
> As I remember from your past posts you have a model
> railway basically operated by a computer programme which selects which
> relay to activate to operate the block and allow the train to move.
Correct!
>
> Yours is not a beginners model railway by any means and I admire
> your ability to wire multiple blocks with relays and write a
> complicated computer programme to control everything so that trains
> pop out of your progressive staging and move in accordance with your
> timetable. It does what you want, strict timetable operation.
It also allows me to take over any railway function I feel I would like to
take on.
It's NOT 100% automatic.
>
> That is not for me. I prefer to build my ( and my club's )
> model railways with as little complications as possible. A simple
> single bus wire for each electrical power section connected to every
> piece of track for electrical reliability.
My philosophy is and has been for the last 20 odd years to move the
complication of electrical operation to hard wiring and with this/these
present layouts to move the complication from hard wiring to software.
A simple example would be spur and route traction current. I just use the
electrical switching of turnouts to link power to the track beyond.
Another example is basic route control; if a siding could only be accessed
via two turnouts in series then throwing the final turnout causes the
preceding turnouts to be thrown. Add in signals - a turnout can't be thrown
when it clashes with an already set route. (defined by 'clear' signals) A
signal can't be cleared until there is a route set.
It's basic interlocking as used on my chosen prototype.
Previously I hard wired it all, with additional switches stacked on each
point motor. On the present layout I replaced the additional switches and
hard wiring with software - much less hastle and easily altered.
I object to the time wasted in the past on building control panel hardware
which has almost always been a step behind layout alterations.
>
> Both model railways are single track with passing loops and at
> the club we have operating sessions with up to 12 trains running at
> the same time, 6 in each direction, with trains having to wait in the
> passing loop until the train coming from the opposite direction
> arrives in the ajacent loop and the section ahead is clear to proceed
> to the next loop. This CAN also be done with DC, but not without
> VERY COMPLICATED block wiring and manual ( or computer ) electrical
> control. Before DCC we could not easily control more than 3 trains
> on the railway and could not run 2 trains in opposing directions
> towards a passing loop at the same time. One had to be in the loop
> with track power off to enable the other to pass through, then wait
> until the section behind was clear before proceeding. I know we
> could have wired it so that trains could move without clear sections
> if we had made about 8 more control blocks, then we may have been able
> to run up to 6 trains with lots of block switch flipping to activate
> power. Now more members are getting sound equipped locos so we may
> have to add another booster and split into 3 power districts with 4
> protected sections per district.
I wouldn't even try to persuade you to do it otherwise (electrically).
I personally would do it with DC, but for a club layout you would become
dependent on me being there to fix any faults or else spend a lot of time
on scenery. =8^)
> Not really desirable as this portable HO layout us due to be
> replaced with a much larger fixed layout in about 8 months when the
> new fixed OO layout ( under construction with about 4.5 scale miles of
> double track ) is running and 80% scenery finished. The staging was
> powered up last Monday and all that is required electrically is for
> the point motors to be connected to the temporarily mounted fascia
> switches and the DCS200 & DB200 connected to the 2 x PS4's per
> booster, then the electricians part is finished and the scenery
> experts can take over.
> To wire this layout to operate as we require would have been
> a nightmare and we wiring wallahs refused point blank to have DC block
> control unless the chinese fella SUM WUN did it for us.
>
> Good luck, Greg, DC & computer assistance is right for you,
> for those who want to get trains running on a new larger layout then
> DCC wiring can save months of construction time.
Sure, but then you will come up against the limitations of DCC at some
point.
or not. If you do then you're dependent on the DCC producers having a
technological work-around.
For me, with much of my layout in hidden staging yards, electrical block
operation was the only practical way. Yes, there are _now_ technological
work-arounds, but there weren't when I started the layout and they are
expensive today in the numbers I would require.
The second problem was the actual loco recognition, and in spite of the
insults thrown at me by various people on this ng in regards to it, it was a
very real stumbling point.
>
> For a small layout with more than one train running at the same
> time, DCC is the best way to go as there need not be any electrical
> blocks. Switch flicking or wire plugging to control the trains is a
> thing of the past. Just advance the throttle and enjoy.
Sure, but ...
- signalling is a part of the hobby.
- prototype operation is a part of the hobby.
- electrical wiring is enjoyable.
Erik Olsen
> I was talking about my modelling/prototype.
> Around the 1870s those railways that ran relatively intensive services
> realized that "time slots" didn't keep trains safely separated and so
> instituted other means of separating them.
>
> The whole point of signals is to keep trains separated.
> Certainly it isn't the only way, but if you're going to have signals
> and train detection and independent *electrical* ;-) blocks then
> ...why bother doing it some other way.
If the prototype you're modelling uses such a block signalling system,
it is of course possible to arrange for power distribution blocks for a
DC system to cover the same track sections as the signalling blocks on
the line. In stations and yards, however, I can easily imagine
situations where more power distribution blocks than signalling blocks
will be needed to make it possible to perform certain movements that the
prototype used.
There are, and was, also prototypes that did not use block signalling.
In Denmark, many secondary lines only had entry signals at stations and
yards and no block signals. Today using CTC the number of signals have
of course increased. Some local lines still have only entry signals at
stations and use radio for traffic control (like the NA TWC).
In North America, as I understand it, many lines today use "Track
Warrant Control" to manage traffic, this is mostly done by radio. Some
lines use Automatic block signalling in addition to TWC but others are
unsignalled. Of course, on lines with high traffic density CTC is mostly
used.
The older "Timetable and Train Order Control" relied on the printed time
table and written train orders issued at train order stations which had
train order signals to inform trains to pick up or stop for orders, but
they were not block signals.
Greg.P.
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:15:45 -0700, "Greg.P." <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>>"mark_newton" <mark_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:44EBDEEE...@optusnet.com.au...
>>> Greg.P. wrote:
>>>
>>> > I run a model railway, not individual slot cars on rails. ie the
>>> > layout is not about driving individual trains around tracks but about
>>> > numerous trains operating at once to give an impression of the way
>>> > _railways_ operate.
>>>
>>> I wondered how long it would be before you started posting this
>>> nonsensical bullshit again.
>>>
>>
>>I post such bullshit as a reaction to your (collective as well as
>>individual) bullshit.
>
> Mark is not the one posting bullshit, you are. Not only that, but
> everyone reading
> this group has become keenly aware of that.
Go back to the subject line and then think!
We were asked to comment on our individual experiences of DCC. I've had
DCC/Lenz since before it was DCC and I still have it.
I've attempted to relate the shortfalls I found with DCC _in my modelling_.
Mark has attempted to show me that I'm wrong by insisting on _US operating
procedures_
Of course we can't agree because Mark is not on subject. Of course I'm
making statements that don't fit Mark's time and location limited view of
operation because that's not the subject under discussion.
If Mark wants to discuss DCC in relation to his limited time and location
then he should start a new subject.
>
>>You keep coming up with this "DCC is the ultimate" crap. It's one form of
>>control that has a lot of advantages and some major shortcomings.
>>DCC isn't the only way to achieve many of the functions available at the
>>outputs of loco decoders, but unfortunately most electronics producers
>>have
>>jumped on the DCC bandwagon and totally ignored the other possibilities.
>
> That's because the "other possibilities"- namely direct current-
> controlling the
> tracks under the trains instead of the actual trains- has reached its
> limit of
> practical development.
No it hasn't.
One can do many things with DC to mimic some of the features
> of DCC, but at great cost in time, money and engineering input.
It's simple enough - add a decoder programed to react to DCC commands other
than speed and direction control. It's a very simple concept.
There is no point in
> doing that when one can get all that DC offers and more right out of the
> box with a
> top-shelf DCC system.
There most definitely is a point when ones layout is modelling a prototype
block system.
Reading the tripe you write one gets the idea that you believe
> that your old manual typewriter can do everything a modern, computerized
> word
> processing program can do. That is rubbish,
Sure, but you're overlooking the fact that a modern, computerized word
processing program can do _most_ of what an old manual typewriter can do. It
still can't print on paper.
I'm sure the subtleties of that will be lost on you, but never mind.
and so are your anti-DCC rantings.
> Listening to you prattle about prototypical working is a joke. Either you
> do not have
> a clue, or you are pretending not to have one.
Go back to the subject line - I'm talking about the limitations of DCC in my
situation, not about present day limited, location limited, operating
practices.
In either case, you are coming across
> like an absolutely clueless individual. There are several of us
> subscribing to this
> group who are, or have been, professional railroaders, myself among them.
> We have
> told you that you don't know what you are talking about, and you respond
> that, yes
> you do, it is us that are incorrect and clueless.
I'll repeat that. You apparently don't have a clue beyond your personal
experience of a single prototype of the recent past.
When I read your post stating
> that; while you do not actually have any real working on the railroad
> experience,
> you have read a lot about it and know several people who do, or who have
> worked on
> the railroad, I almost sprayed a mouthful of Coca-Cola out onto the
> keyboard and
> video screen. Did you mean that as a joke, or were you actually serious?
Are you suggesting that the only way to obtain knowledge is to actually do
the job???
99% of the worls's population is going to be horribly disapointed!!!
Close the schools - close the universities - close the polytechs - close the
apprentice schemes!
If the only way to learn is to do the job then the rails, the trains, the
systems would not exist in the first place. <sheesh>
I certainly couldn't model German railways of 1932 because they don't exist.
>
> Do you think that those of us who earn a living working on the railroad
> live in a
> vacuum? Do you think we can spend decades working as groundsmen, engine
> drivers,
> signalmen, trainmasters, yardmasters, leading engine drivers, dispatchers
> and so on,
> and not know all about how a real railway operates?
Do you think there's only one possible way to operate a railway???
Why, if you are aware enough to have ever thought, do you think there are
different ways to build locomotives, different ways to build passenger
carriages, different ways to build wagons, different track gauges etc etc
etc ...
Is everyone else but the US wrong? Are those in the USa who try different
ways wrong?
Do you think that those of the USa who try different methods are wrong???
> aforementioned group who are interested enough to be model railroaders
> have not
> accrued additional railway knowledge through reading, study, and
> observation to go
> along with their own first-hand experience? Do you think that I am
> incapable of
> operating my model railway with DCC in exactly the same fashion that my
> chosen
> prototype did? If you do, then you are an arrogant ass to be sure.
So why are you telling me that I am wrong in attempting to operate my model
railway in the same fashion as my prototype did?
I didn't start this with the intent of telling anyone they are wrong (beyond
those claiming DCC is the ultimate control system) I've responded to those
attacking my experiences with DCC and they seem determined to take my
responses out of context.
>>
>>
>>> > As railways operate by block, with only one train per block...
>>>
>>> As you have been told *REPEATEDLY*, that is not always the case.
>>
>>Block control is normal on most railways of the world.
>>
>>>How
>>> many times do you need to be reminded that the operating rules for
>>> German railways are not the same as those for other systems in other
>>> countries, the USA in particular?
>>
>>The USa is just one country in the world. You are circa 5% of the world's
>>population and possibly 1% of the World's railways.
>>
>>> How many more times are you going to
>>> argue the toss with knowledgable people who run trains for a living???
>>>
>>
>>My point is and always has been that DCC is a very limiting answer to
>>multiple model train control. It appeals to beginners. Once you settle on
>>that system you limit the potential of model railways.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Greg.P.
>
> Your intransigence and your abyssal lack of knowledge about railway
> operation is
> amusing.
You're suggesting that the majority of the world's railways don't operate on
the block system???
> Almost as amusing as your pathetic attempts to discredit DCC and all those
> who use
> it.
I AM NOT trying to discredit DCC nor the people who use it.
I am simply pointing out that it does have limitations, as any system must
imnherently have limitations.
Those limitations will only show up at an advanced stage in the hobby but
people tend to take up DCC at an early stage of the hobby and therefore
won't become aware of those limitations until it is too late to consider
change.
You said that I should killfile you. Ah, but I won't do that, because you
amuse
> me and I am one of the few who genuinely irritate you. You are sorely
> lacking in
> knowledge about railway operations in the real world, and even more sorely
> lacking in
> knowledge regarding prototypical operation of model railways.
Only in your limited mind.
You have, so far, got
> yourself PLONKED by two subscribers to this group by virtue of your
> ignorant
> rantings. I will not be number three. I rather enjoy seeing you get your
> ass roasted
> by the likes of Roger and Mark. I am sorry that Roger killfiled you as it
> was
> amusing to read him rake you over the coals. I shall miss that. If you
> knew what
> you were talking about it would be different, but you pontificate from a
> point of
> utter ignorance, so you deserve to get raked over the coals.
Mark is insisting on changing the subject to his own limited area of
knowledge - of course we shall never agree on anything because we're arguing
different subjects.
>
> Regards,
> Obnoxious Pratt
The Seabat
<obno...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>Mark is not the one posting bullshit, you are. Not only that, but everyone reading
>>this group has become keenly aware of that.
Don't presume to speak for all of us, sport! There are some of us that
are not totally anti-Greg. So, please, just spout your retoric as
yours and not "everyone".
<<<BIG SNIP>>>
--
The Seabat
Greg.P.
"Peter W." <pet...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1156479019.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
while not understanding that it is the problem.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Bob May
that has on that order a number of locos (when you can claim to have much of
the railroad you're modelling types you generally have a lot of locos,
especially when you can claim several of one class AND also be able to do
that iwth diesels!) then the cost of adding decoders is a major issure.
Those of you that are running 5-10 locos don't see the expense involved.
I'd rather walk into a club layout in some strange town and not be able to
run my locos because of them being DCC than to try and convert a DCC loco to
DC for an operating session on a DC layout.
BTW, what do the really large layouts use? DC or DCC? Also, what happens
to a layout when a good 100 locos are all running at a time?
As far as sound is concerned, it is easy to do sound on a DC layout. It is,
however, a bit expensive if you buy the commercial equipment as there aren't
that many sold and thus the price is high. I've heard excellent sound from
locos 30 years ago with the PFM sound system and it is a simple system ot
implement - just mix the sound with the track power through a transformer
and pick it up in the loco with a cap to drive the speaker.
--
Yeppie, Bush is such an idiot that He usually outwits
everybody else. How dumb!
Ray Haddad
and "Greg.P." <pro...@ihug.co.nz> instead replied:
>We will never have World Peace while the USa insists that it has the answers
>while not understanding that it is the problem.
Yeah.
Let the Kiwis police the world and keep those terrorists in line.
--
Ray
Bob May
another pisswater.
Stein R
news:ecnps1$u78$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz:
> My
> prototype was a heavily trafficked main line section where the train
> movement capacity was always at it's limit, so one operator/one train
> would be a physical impracticability. There wouldn't be space for that
> number of operators to stand in front of the layout, and as each train
> appears once (or twice) in an operating session and then returns to
> the staging yard. Amongst this organised mahem I can take a task such
> as running the local goods, picking up and setting down wagons at each
> industry while threading through the mix of suburban commuter trains,
> medium and long distance passenger and goods trains.
> DCC didn't add enough advantages to offset the inherent disadvantages,
> _in my situation_.
That would seem to be a reasonably rational decission given what you
apparently want to be the main focus of your model - a lot of trains
moving essensially *on autopilot* at the same time, to create a heavy
traffic situation.
Which is not to say that the same local freight job could not *also* be
modelled equally well by using DCC to stop the local freight at a
switch, witch your controller to pick up a train that need to pass on
the mainline and drive the other train past (and into staging) before
you again pick up your local freight and continue down the line to the
next industry.
Essensially, in the situation of taking a local out to pick up or put
out freight cars at local industries, the only difference is the
*viewpoint* of the person driving that local.
Whether he in principle represents a god-like creature who hovers in
the sky above the area and sees the whole area and all trains in the
area moving at the same time as he runs his one train, or whether he
represents a train driver who concentrates on his own train and his
closest environs.
I agree that the god-perspective must look cool when a lot of things
are happening at the same time, and that it takes a heck of a lot of
skill to make it come off well - so things actually can run on auto-
pilot, and yet be controlled and changed when needed.
I just do not agree that having lots of trains operating on auto-pilot
at the same time is the *only* sensible way to model a given prototype.
Especially when the prototype you are modelling did not have ATC.
Grin,
Stein
Roger T.
>> tastes great?
>>
> Bud Lite is a birth control device. It tastes so bad that she'll never
> drink enough of it to let you any where near her ;-)
Bud Lite is like having sex in a canoe.
--
Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Roger T.
> Wait until you taste what Guiness has turned into here in the states -
> just
> another pisswater.
Carlsberg, Guinness and other off shore beers brewed in North America are
"brewed to Canadian/American tastes". Which means they do not taste the
same nor do the have the same alcohol content as they do in their home
country but are brewed to taste like every other popular Canadian/American
beer.
This was admitted to by the breweries due the high number of tourists who
come back from overseas and ask why the beers they drink over in Europe as
say Guinness or Carlsberg tastes completely different from the beer they
drink at home.
Edward A. Oates
T. at roge...@highspeedplus.com wrote on 8/25/06 5:34 PM:
Alcohol content is regulated by various states, and if they want to call it
"Beer" instead of "Stout Malt Liquor," they have to stay in the "beer"
range.
The formulations for taste are based on market research: these are massive
corporations and want to sell a lot of beer. So they brew it to taste like
other big selling brews. It is possible to get reasonable (though not
necessarily European tasting) beers here in the US: Sam Adams and Henry
Weinhard, Dos X (especially the dark) for mass market stuff; Anchor Steam
and similar here in the SF bay area. You do need to look around, but decent
beer is available. Just don't expect it from Budweiser, Miller, or Coors.
Greg.P.
"Erik Olsen" <modelba...@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:5b65e$44ef6c11$3e3d8433$25...@news.arrownet.dk...
> Greg.P. wrote:
>>>
>>> Then do you like Bud Lite because it's less filling, or because it
>>> tastes great?
>>
>> I prefer proper beer, not that crap yank gnats piss.
>
> Is it that bad? I never tasted the stuff, perhaps it's no better than
> Danish Carlsberg Pilsner, bvadr.
No it's not that bad, in fact it has almost no flavour, no alcohol content
or taste.
Quite why anyone would actually want to drink it is a mystery to me.
But that's my personal opinion.
The Carlsberg Pilsner tastes much more like beer than does Bud Lite. I tried
that once as well.
Paul Newhouse
"Bob May" <bob...@nethere.com> writes:
> I'd rather walk into a club layout in some strange town and not be able
> to run my locos because of them being DCC than to try and convert a DCC
> loco to DC for an operating session on a DC layout.
You have to have a pretty old, or strange, decoder that won't run on DC.
> BTW, what do the really large layouts use? DC or DCC?
What is a really large layout? The club I belong to has a 15'x100'
layout. With DC we are limited to 6 cabs. With DCC we have run 8
trains on the main (it's a pretty busy dispatcher at that point) and
some switching in the three primary yards. So we probably don't
qualify as a really large layout?
> Also, what happens to a layout when a good 100 locos are all
> running at a time?
Dunno! Depends on what features the locos have, if they are all BLI
sound equipped you need lots of power districts (boosters). We just
upgraded to the 5 AMP boosters because we found that two 4 engine (all
BLI w/sound) trains (with all the lighted and sound cars) drew too
much power for the old <4 AMP boosters.
Greg.P.
"Erik Olsen" <modelba...@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
> Greg.P. wrote:
>
>> I was talking about my modelling/prototype.
>> Around the 1870s those railways that ran relatively intensive services
>> realized that "time slots" didn't keep trains safely separated and so
>> instituted other means of separating them.
>>
>> The whole point of signals is to keep trains separated.
>> Certainly it isn't the only way, but if you're going to have signals
>> and train detection and independent *electrical* ;-) blocks then
>> ...why bother doing it some other way.
>
> If the prototype you're modelling uses such a block signalling system, it
> is of course possible to arrange for power distribution blocks for a DC
> system to cover the same track sections as the signalling blocks on the
> line. In stations and yards, however, I can easily imagine situations
> where more power distribution blocks than signalling blocks will be needed
> to make it possible to perform certain movements that the prototype used.
Absolutely. Most of my ladder yard tracks are divided at least into two
sections, as each end of the ladder can be on a separate controller.
That requires switches to switch off/on sections of track. The halves are
also switched by their relevant turnouts. Generally the required toggle
switching is done by the computer/turnouts and only special circumstances
require manual electrical switching.
>
> There are, and was, also prototypes that did not use block signalling.
Of course, depending on one's definition of "block".
A single line unsignaled track between two stations counts as a 'block'.
> In Denmark, many secondary lines only had entry signals at stations and
> yards and no block signals. Today using CTC the number of signals have of
> course increased. Some local lines still have only entry signals at
> stations and use radio for traffic control (like the NA TWC).
>
> In North America, as I understand it, many lines today use "Track Warrant
> Control" to manage traffic, this is mostly done by radio. Some lines use
> Automatic block signalling in addition to TWC but others are unsignalled.
> Of course, on lines with high traffic density CTC is mostly used.
>
> The older "Timetable and Train Order Control" relied on the printed time
> table and written train orders issued at train order stations which had
> train order signals to inform trains to pick up or stop for orders, but
> they were not block signals.
Again it depends on ones terminology. A line between two train order
stations is a 'block'( or section in the US?)
While various people here contend that multiple trains are sent into that
'block' (or section) with only a written order and a specific time interval
to separate them I'm uninclined to believe them as that system was dropped
elsewhere at about the time the telegraph came into use due to the number of
train colissions that took place under that system of operation.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Obnoxious Pratt
You are not one to speak of uninformed, as little as you know.
I don't believe you even have a complete knowledge of how your prototype of choice
operates. I think you just make it up as it suits you.
You are clearly uninformed on railway workings around the rest of the world.
It remains to be determined by someone better qualified than you whether I am
ignorant or not.
Obnoxious? Yes. That is deliberate, but ignorant? Hardly.
Regards,
Obnoxious Pratt
Greg.P.
> "Greg.P." <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
> news:ecnps1$u78$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz:
>
>> My
>> prototype was a heavily trafficked main line section where the train
>> movement capacity was always at it's limit, so one operator/one train
>> would be a physical impracticability. There wouldn't be space for that
>> number of operators to stand in front of the layout, and as each train
>> appears once (or twice) in an operating session and then returns to
>> the staging yard. Amongst this organised mahem I can take a task such
>> as running the local goods, picking up and setting down wagons at each
>> industry while threading through the mix of suburban commuter trains,
>> medium and long distance passenger and goods trains.
>> DCC didn't add enough advantages to offset the inherent disadvantages,
>> _in my situation_.
>
> That would seem to be a reasonably rational decission given what you
> apparently want to be the main focus of your model - a lot of trains
> moving essensially *on autopilot* at the same time, to create a heavy
> traffic situation.
>
> Which is not to say that the same local freight job could not *also* be
> modelled equally well by using DCC to stop the local freight at a
> switch, witch your controller to pick up a train that need to pass on
> the mainline and drive the other train past (and into staging) before
> you again pick up your local freight and continue down the line to the
> next industry.
Yes, but why?
I do have Trix EMS, which uses HF signals imposed on DC to operate a shunter
in conjunction with analogue trains for my industrial branch. It does the
basics of what DCC does, allow independent control of two locos in the same
block. It's barely worth the trouble.
>
> Essensially, in the situation of taking a local out to pick up or put
> out freight cars at local industries, the only difference is the
> *viewpoint* of the person driving that local.
>
> Whether he in principle represents a god-like creature who hovers in
> the sky above the area and sees the whole area and all trains in the
> area moving at the same time as he runs his one train, or whether he
> represents a train driver who concentrates on his own train and his
> closest environs.
Sure, I could ignore all other train movements and just run one train - a
major part of the interplay operation would be missing.
>
> I agree that the god-perspective must look cool when a lot of things
> are happening at the same time, and that it takes a heck of a lot of
> skill to make it come off well - so things actually can run on auto-
> pilot, and yet be controlled and changed when needed.
>
> I just do not agree that having lots of trains operating on auto-pilot
> at the same time is the *only* sensible way to model a given prototype.
It's the only practical way to model lots of trains moving with one or a
limited number of operators available.!
> Especially when the prototype you are modelling did not have ATC.
They did have A.T.Braking for signals in 1932. It had first appeared
operationally on the GWR in Britain in (from memory) 1912.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg.P.
"Obnoxious Pratt" <obno...@ibellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:44efdb21...@news.east.earthlink.net...
I'm qualified to declare you ignorant.
> Obnoxious? Yes. That is deliberate, but ignorant? Hardly.
See, you don't even know that you're ignorant!
>
> Regards,
> Obnoxious Pratt
>
Greg.P.
It doesn't have to taste like European beers, it just needs to taste like
beer!
The alcoholic content and other regulations are your problems, not an
excuse.
;-)
Regards,
Greg.P.
video guy - www.locoworks.com
So, did Stein get his peanut butter on Greg's chocolate, or did Greg
get his chocolate on Stein's peanut butter?
Stein R
news:ecomme$jvp$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz:
>> Essensially, in the situation of taking a local out to pick up or put
>> out freight cars at local industries, the only difference is the
>> *viewpoint* of the person driving that local.
>>
>> Whether he in principle represents a god-like creature who hovers in
>> the sky above the area and sees the whole area and all trains in the
>> area moving at the same time as he runs his one train, or whether he
>> represents a train driver who concentrates on his own train and his
>> closest environs.
>
> Sure, I could ignore all other train movements and just run one train
> - a major part of the interplay operation would be missing.
Ever heard of Occams Razor ? Essensially the same as the KISS principle
- don't make a model (or a theory) any more complicated than it needs to
be to be *adequate* for the situation at hand.
That is the core of modelling. You pick those aspects of a real life
prototype which is important to *you* to model and concentrate on that,
while abstracting away some of the other stuff.
To me, your way of modelling seems like it would give me far greater
cost (in construction time, construction cost, space requirements and
operating complexity), without necessarily giving *me* a corresponding
gain/benefit in the experience of driving a local freight train and
picking up or setting out freight cars.
Obviously, your mileage may vary.
There is no "right answer" to what we chose to model. Different strokes
work for different people.
>> I agree that the god-perspective must look cool when a lot of things
>> are happening at the same time, and that it takes a heck of a lot of
>> skill to make it come off well - so things actually can run on auto-
>> pilot, and yet be controlled and changed when needed.
>>
>> I just do not agree that having lots of trains operating on
>> auto-pilot at the same time is the *only* sensible way to model a
>> given prototype.
>
> It's the only practical way to model lots of trains moving with one or
> a limited number of operators available.!
No. It is certainly *a* practical way to move lots of model trains with
one or a limited number of operators available.
But ponder the difference between "to model lots of trains moving" and
"to move lots of model trains".
The way your model the interplay between real life trains is certainly
*a* valid solution. But it is not necessarily the *only* possible way of
modelling interplay.
Smile,
Stein