so by ATC, you mean stopping a loco if it crosses a STOP signal?
i thought ATC is
partially aligning routes on a scheule,
starting trains on a schedule,
slowing and stopping trains at stations and at stop signals and
stopping trains at there destinations.
this type of ATC is not trivial and requires some planning to work well. it also requires tracking a loco from block to block and either short block or point (optical) detector near a stopping point to trigger slowing a train down.
the NJ club had stopping blocks, a short block before a signal which if entered when a STOP signal is active would open a relay stopping the train … if it doesn’t have a long keep alive.
PSX/PSXX DCC circuit breakers can be used on a single track and has a optical detector input to drop power when active
Yes, I mean Automatic Train Control as in the prototype system used starting in the 1920’s by a number of railroads only on passenger trains.
A quick search of the internet seems to have renamed this older system Automatic Train Stop as ATC is now defined as systems like you are describing. But I assure you at one time it was called ATC.
On the prototype it worked like this, inductive coils on the train and near the track would relay aboslute stop violations to a control box on the locomotive. If the Engineer failed to respond quickly the system would close the throttle and put the brakes in Emergency. At that point the engineer had no control over this.
OR, a larger home layout with multiple trains operating. In my case most of my layouts, including the new one I am working on, have been designed for both “prototype operation” and multi train display running.
The new layout will support 5 display loop trains when desired.
So you are exactly correct, I don’t like the noise from multiple sound equiped locos, not to leave out the fact that HiFi audio is one of my other hobbies…
Greg, as a side note, even though I design my layouts to allow continious display operation, I have no interest in “automation” like you described above, station stops, automatic route changes, or automatic schedules.
I run DCC sound but I only recently switched over. I will say there is something peaceful about DC. I just miss the simplicity sometimes. DC operators are not worried about blowing up a decoder and that’s something that I miss a lot.
In the days when DCC or DC discussions were more spirited, my frustration came from the lack of exploration of this point.
The more frustrating comments came from the point of view that eveybody seemed to want goals/layouts that ran multiple trains either at the same time or in some fairly complex way. That DCC solved some sort of problem more simply than DC did.
When your goals are to have a shelf style layout than runs a one loco train, one at a time…because the railroad you model runs one loco trains one at a time…you realize tha the layout simply needs two wires from power source to track, and that’s it. (Turnout wiring for conductivity security or powering frogs is generally a matter of choice).
If your layout needs only two wires, what problem does DCC solve?
My comments were often met with crickets, and the discussions about the problems caused by complex layouts carried on. I guess the idea of running one loco trains one at a time was not what model railroading was. Eventhough I’ll wager that a large percentage of modelers run their layout exactly that way, or, the people that do have simple layouts may not participate in forums much. (fewer problems beget fewer questions?)
Then along came sound, and I went DCC because of it. And I agree with just about every critical comment I read about onboard sound, but those shortcomings of the system still make for a better experience for me than a silent running train. (Also, one loco at a time isn’t as annoying as having multiple sound locos running at the same time)
GregC) Not comparing DCC to Waybills, Im reffering to waybill generation, AND DCC both being controlled by one PC. Along with all the other things a PC could do, for a Model Railroad if it was implememnted.
ATC = Automatic Train Control. The purpose for ATC was to “Stop any train so equipped” once it passed a point that it was not supposed to. IE: Station stop. Red signal.
The whole reason ATC came about was because before unions, railroads would work their crews so many hours station agents would see trains blow through stations with the engineers head bobbling around… asleep!
You can tell an ATC equipped locomotive by the pick up shoes located on the tender trucks. For a better view of the equipment, look at the front of an RF&P Berkshire betwixt the front deck mounted air pumps. Youll see a large box - thats the ATC controls. The pick up shoe is on the tender truck. This particular loco class the ATC equipment can be seen easily. There are others Im sure.
The PC to Layout computer stuff from way back in the beginning was called C/MRC or C/MRI (i cant remember which). This is what DCC should have evolved into, not as it did. AS 7 OF 9 tertiary adjunct of unimatrix 1 would put it…
“DCC is acceptable, however its design is crude and insufficient.”
what would be better for comparable cost (that actually controls locos on the track)?
the electronics to support DCC communication is trivial, a diode.
you realize Chubb’s C/MRI is not for loco control, it’s for turnout, signal, block occupancy, turnout feedback, …, no connections to track and provides a way to connect all the devices on a layout to a controller (PC) using just a pair of wires. some would say it significantly simplifies wiring.
LCC, the part that controls the layout doesn’t control locos
Doughless, I would agree that one sound equiped loco, on the intimate setting of an industrial switching layout, or other smaller specific theme layout, can be an enjoyable thing.
And, to my ears, if that is an S scale, On30 or O scale loco, where a larger speaker will fit, so much the better.
I will also remind others of how quickly the noise of the train fades in real life. They are loud when they are close but quickly fade into the background noise of the world at 300 feet or so.
Yes, I think sound makes much more sense on smaller, one train at a time layouts.
In my case, I have never fully imbraced that level of being the engineer.
Hi Beausabre, I very much agree with your statement! [Y][8D]
I keep the volume on my sound equipped units turned down low to convey “selectively compressed” distance and (depending on which decoder or sound scheme is active at the moment) prefer to have a small amount of reverb to convey that illusion.
It’s so cool that today, with properly baffled high quality speakers, combined with a quality decoder we can hear our motive power without the distortion and excessive treble that we often heard back in the early 2000’s from some aftermarket installations of what was available then.
My $150 Power Cab (2006) comes with 35 buttons. Those buttons come in different shapes & sizes and are arranged so that the most used ones are located near the top. With my thumb I can control my loco’s speed (3 options), direction, momentum, horn, whistle, and emergency stop all one-handed. So, I don’t even need to look at the throttle. The one exception would be the additional step of entering the momentum level, which I can do on the fly.
Also, I spend enough time each day in front of a computer. I don’t want to do that running trains on a layout. For me, less is actually more bang for my buck. And the control that I get with my Power Cab is quite sufficient for my needs. I don’t need extra keys to enhance the enjoyment of my train-time on the layout.
Don’t quite understand what PMR is concerned about.
DCC is a communications protocol to control devices. It has nothing to do with the human-machine interface. DCC doesn’t care whether you have as many keys as a Wurlitzer organ or a keyboard or a mouse driven screen with no keys. Doesn’t matter. That’s not a DCC thing. That’s a Digitrax or NCE or whatever manufacturrer thing, not a DCC thing.
Because DCC is a system to drive devices, it has nothing to do with waybills, signal logic or track authority, other than to possiblly drive any devices connected to those systems. Just like on a real railroad, all of those systems are driven by separate “expert systems” that specialize in managing the individual aspects. None of that has anything to do with DCC (other than if they communicate with a device such as a switch motor or servoc control for a signal).
I don’t understand the whole concern about a PC. You can control DCC with a PC if you want to, JMRI. The whole idea of the brand name throttle is simplicity and portability. I don’t know about you but I don’t want to carry a PC or even a laptop around the layout with me when I operate. I don’t need 101 keys to activate functions when I’m operating. Speed control, direction control, maybe a brake function and a few sounds and I’m good. Engines have numeric ID’s so the keys 0-9 do just fine. When I’m operating a layout, I’m not going to be dictating train orders on my throttle. If you want to have text and a throttle, use a smart phone, there are dozens of apps that will allow running a train and doing various paperwork. With DCC.
There is no question that the sound quality has improved in the last 20 years. But as an experianced HiFi speaker designer, it is still something less than “full range” or HiFi, to my ears anyway.
But, as commented by several others, it is not just the sound quality or volume, but the cacophony of multiple locomotives that many find objectionable on medium sized or even larger layouts.
And let’s be honest, 5 or 10 guys, operating trains on a larger layout, are
A couple of things. My one horse layout also requires me to be yardmaster and dispatcher. Now, my yard is small, and there isn’t a lot to dispatch, but it still requires thought and organization around those concepts. My op sessions are not modeling hours in a day or one day. They model days in a week. So there are several trains to make up, switch out, and organize into different runs at different times in a given op session.
To your last point, part of what drives the simple vs complex issue is the amount of time I would spend finding solutions for problems I created myself. The addition of onboard sound in a multiple loco layout now creates its own set of problems…too many conflicting sounds.
A satisfying part of knowing what I like, instead of always learning new things that I might like (even better?), is the direct pursuit of those goals without wasting time spinning wheels from self inflicted problems, or just plain problems that are unforseen.
Its hobby, and I just want to spend time enjoying it. The scope doesn’t need to be expanded.
But the idea of crossing gate bells and their activators is intruiging. That might be an electronics project I could get motivated for.
I started in DC and moved to DCC on my 1st layout and staye with DCC on my 2nd (current one). Yes, there is a steep learning curve with DCC and there is a startup fee, but I do not regret the move to DCC.
Another thing to mention with DCC is you need to ensure you do not have a short with feeders connected to the wrong buss lines. Pls don’t ask how I know. I also find DCC is not forgiving with improper wiring. It took awhile for me to slow down and be patient. Never would return to DC.
I run DC at home, any at our club I own two DCC sound locos. I have three Aristocraft wireless throttles, and spent a fair sum on them and three power packs.
I did this twenty years ago because I knew no one that understood DCC, and the literature was sadly lacking. I now know enough to start learning about DCC, but I find that it is not worth the bother.
We both agree that DC or DCC choice is about the end user. What works for one doesn’t work for another. “Railfans” vs. “Operators”, “Dispatchers” vs. “Engineers”, and so on.
So why DCC?
On board sound is nice but it also needs to be scaled for the application. The volume needed at a 5000 sq.ft. club isn’t a good idea in a 10’x10’ bedroom layout. Likewise, kill blocks at engine terminals are a good investment (at my DCC club, all roundhouses use a rotary selector switch for radial track power).
DCC walk-around isn’t just for manual turnouts. We have a mix of toggle-thrown switches and throttle-thrown switches with most being both. This is very handy when trying to throw a switch beyond your current reach…say on the other side of a duck-under.
Both multi-train and multi-operator layouts, regardless of size, can see signficant benefits with DCC over a simple (2+ cab) DC layout. However, one-train/one-operator layouts work just as well with DC, so DCC probably isn’t worth it unless there’s a specific want/need by the end user.
The “neutral” issues.
You say that the wiring will be the same, more or less, for turnout switch controls. Here I disagree; in certain cases, namely for any dispatcher-controlled switches, the wiring for remote switch control is vastly simplified for DCC vs. DC. Yes, for a simple home layout, wiring is about the same as wiring in a DPDT toggle (and isn’t usually worth the effort). However, if you want to control that turnout (and all the others) from another location, the amount of copper required is daunting.
At my club, as dispatcher, I control over 150 turnouts using a PC running JMRI. The entirety of the wiring between the layout and my upstairs tower is exactly one 6-conductor wire.&nb
As I have said before… If I were starting over from scratch, I would have a shelf G scale switching layout with one DCC controlled GP-9, with one very loud speaker.
I think DCC/sound would be great for a one locomotive show.
