Way back in 1829, Robert Stephenson invented his Rocket. Not long after that you can bet that many young boys were wanting to emulate this new technology and probably many of them started off by stringing a few blocks of wood together and pulled these around the living room floor much to their mother’s chagrin.
Next to have come, the first commercially produced toy, made out of lead, tinplate or wood, the cars may have been joined together with a bit of tin nailed to the underbelly of the cars.
Somewhere along the way the first toy track would have been offered up and it probably was made out of wood and/or tinplate. Early trains were powered by the use of small hands pushing them across the floor or around the track. Then horrors upon horrors! The clockwork engine rolled onto the scene. We have just been removed from our play value. Now we just sit around and watch the train move itself, where is the fun in that?
Sometime in the late 1800’s the first electric train “charged” into existence and we all know where we are today as far as advances made to our hobby.
At the last big train show I was at there was this kid that looked to be in his late teens that had a 4’ x 8’ plywood pacific set up. He sat at a separate table with his nose firmly glued to the screen of his laptop. He controlled everything on the layout from the computer. Switches, uncoupling, a few lights and some other things. The trains daily rounds could be all done through automation or he could “manually” control the train movement with the keyboard and/or mouse.
I sat back and watched for quite a while and noticed that he rarely took his eyes off the screen to actually look at the layout. I began to wonder why he had the layout at all. I then came to the realization that he was probably combining two of his great loves in life, that being MRR and computer technology. I smiled and walked away when I realized how much fun this kid was having. I was also a litt
I am fully committed to DCC for my under construction layout.
Down the road, when the layout is complete at least to trackwork and wiring, I could see using a computer to control the other trains on the layout. So I run a freight or passenger and the computer runs the other trains. Or if there are 2 live operators, we each run a train and the computer runs the rest. Etc.
Personally, I’m not interested in running the trains through the computer - might as well run a simulator. But I would be open to z computer running all the trains at times when I just want to watch.
Great story line here. I’m afraid I can’t add much to it.
I am old school and plan to stay that way. I have a few Blue Point turnout controller and plan to add a couple of Tortoise in another area that I have already bought, other than that a few neon signs and some road crossing signals.
But as I read these threads about DCC, I just shake my head. First thing is that it isn’t less costly, far more instead. Then I read about all the burnt out boards and then the number of Locos being shipped back and forth between Hobbiest and Mfg. or Hooby Shop to get them running again or to sort out the CVs.
Then, in my mind I reflect on my DC. layout and become even more endeared to it. I guess if you really have your head into electronics it is OK for you. But for me there wouldn’t be the joy or fun factor, infact I would probably be quite miserable dealing with all that.
I know the block wiring on my layout inside out. set up for 28 blocks with 17 operating now. and I have been tearing down locos for more years than I care to remember and enjoy tuning them up and increasing their performance and quietness. No sound for me either as it is just an annoyance to me. I do have an MRC sound system to just satisfy my young Grandson who like to blow the whistle and horns.
My power and control system is three Controlmaster 20s by MRC.
As I have said my enjoyment is in old school, where I can operate more simply in my case. The wiring has never became a problem but the electronics would.
I’ll stay where I am in my 75th year. To each there own.
But, I wish everyone well with their super detailing, sound, and DCC, it is just not for me.
Johnboy out…wish I wasn’t at work so I could run some trains.
Great stories here I must read once home from work.
In a nutshell: Still briefly 47, I live all day long in a cadd environment, and also am just old/experienced enough to remember doing engineering design with pencil and ink drawings and tracings. I can live in either world, just fine, equally well, as long as there’s light to do the work by.
I realize the limitations of cadd and computers: garbage in = garbage out.
In the HO world I don’t need computerized anything. I like good lights, illuminated numberboards and class lights, and am fine if they are just steady on. They don’t even need to reverse direction for me, as I don’t spend much time running steam power in reverse. I don’t need sound and DCC and am fine with yesterday’s brass steam power that only runs in DC mode. I don’t have many turnouts and don’t need a computer to manage the layout or sounds.
My layouts are usually small to tiny 1 train layouts, so even DCC would be an overkill, let alone any computerized control. However the throttle I use is a PWM controller with momentum simulation and a brake, giving you the feeling of driving a real train.
If I had the means to build a bigger layout, I´d certainly go DCC, but that´s all - no computer running my trains.
As much as I enjoy computers and operating trains with DCC, I have zero interest in combining the two; let alone being glued to a computer montor or a smartphone to operate my layout. The one exception would be using JMRI Decoder Pro for programming and/or storing my CVs and decoder information.
I draw my line at KISS…That means my MRC Tech 6 in DC or DCC mode.
Don’t misunderstand I would love to see CTC on a single track (with passing sidings) point to point layout controled by a computer. I would love to see how it would set up meets and over takes…IMHO that would be something to watch.
Ditto. My interest in the hobby stems from a desire to get some hands-on time in and around trains. They aren’t anywhere close to me, so I have to make up my dream world in a room nearby. I like ‘running’ the show when I go there.
Don’t forget the small live steamer fueled by naptha or some simiar volatile fuel.
There is no way I would give up my DCC, but I would draw the line at trains on automatic control. That would remove the fun of it.
Now an operating signals system for running multiple trains is another matter. There are computer programs out there to run a system, or for the more electrically adept, a basic system using diodes, relays and LED detection modules.
I’m in ther with Tom, (tstage). I recently bought a newer computer for my office, which replaced and older computer wit XP. Before I “unplugged” the XP computer, I installed JMRI, but, as of yet, I have not completed the process, as far as using it for programing.
That will be one of my projects for this coming winter, which is my modeling time.
I’m firmly into DCC and sound (turned waaayyyy down thank you) but I have two areas that I am starting to explore.
The first is JMRI which doesn’t require any explanation to those who use it, and doesn’t matter to those who don’t. Right now I’m not interested in computer control, but I do want to start with some of the basics like rolling stock inventory and programming CVs.
The second is Arduino mini computers. I can see tons of applications for signal, structure and vehicle lighting that will bring life to my layout. As an added bonus, Arduino boards are cheap. Even a simple arc welding representation can be done for relative peanuts compared to the going prices for dedicated circuits.
I’m not talking game changing inventions here. Just simple ways to do some things better.
As many of you know, I use a rather complex, but mostly old tech, control system with detection, signaling, CTC, route control turnouts and radio throttles.
On the more high tech side, it is made up of Aristo Craft Train Engineeer radio throttles and Dallee solid state detectors. On the low tech side it is relays, just like the signal systems on the prototype for more than 100 years.
I have at various times considered both DCC and Computerized Block Control.
I rejected both because I don’t like the “computer screen” interface for actually running the trains or for the CTC - I have friends with DCC and computer based CTC, so I have some experiance with which to judge.
I “could” be tech savy if I wanted, I was programing some of the earliest PLC’s in industry back in the 80’s and often condsidered how they could be apllied to model trains, much like the stuff being done with micro proscessors today.
But for me, recreating the “old tech” of the relay signal system is fun - so that’s what I do.
That gives me a better understanding and appreciation for why you have chosen what you have. I would imagine the clicking of the relays might be similar to what it sounded like directing trains from an interlocking tower during the steam/diesel era.
BATMAN: Thanks for starting up this topic. I LOVE getting filosophical! I don’t have DCC and prefer to use the computer for research and inventoring rolling stock. Using the computer in such a limited way avoids the potential problems of too much technology hampering the fun factor in building things.
Brent wrote "So the question for this Friday is, where do you (currently) draw the line at the computerization of our hobby? There is no right place to be, after all it’s your layout. Also what new technology might you embrace if it ever comes along?
Have a great weekend."
The NMRA is discussing working on a dead rail which greatly intrigues me. The thought of running atrain like the real ones with its own individual power source, that will have to be recharged or "refueled just like teh real ones do …I can see so many aspects about that that I find appealing. Along with cameras, control systems. Heck think about ! Say you neededa a mental break from work you could run your trains from anywhere !!! [tup] [swg]
Dead rail (in 1:1 scale) is old technology - even older than I am. The Six Companies railroad from the concrete plant at Lomix to the base of the Boulder (now Hoover) dam was operated with electric battery motors. They recharged (from third rail) in the 1600 foot tunnel between the dam and the plant. All rail exposed to sunlight was dead. All salvaged and removed before Lake Mead began to fill.
Like Sheldon, I use a variant of Ed Ravenscroft’s MZL system with plain DC. As a long-time hands-in-the-machinery type I simply prefer to keep my eyes on the rails when my hand is on the throttle. While I have a pretty piece of paper that says I knew how to program back in '85, I’m really not thrilled by the capabilities of modern electronics. My phones are smarter, but I still use them the same way - for voice communication. Social media types consider me anti-social since I don’t subscribe. I’m perfectly happy being me.
While I have computer-printed waybills, my car cards are hand-scribed. My printer isn’t programmed to reproduce Japanese characters…
Chuck (Primitive modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 BC - before computers)
So Tom, now that you have an image of that aspect of my controls, imagine this, the DC power routing is done by the same relays that control the CTC signals and the turnouts. yes a few extra wires, but zero extra components.
So for building the signal system, I get the adavanced cab control as nearly free bonus, and that has its own set of features, like Automatic Train Control - if a train over runs its authority, it simply stops. No other throttle takes it over, it has no effect on other trains. If you run a red signal, your train stops, just lke the prototype ATC.
For now, sticking strictly to the era-appropriate level of computer technology: I model 1890-1913, so that means mechanical computers, and the first functioning mechanical computers were used to control railroad interlocking plants. I have gotten as far as purchasing a custom-made 28 lever locking bed that will basically control switch and signal settings on the back half of my layout from Modratec of Australia. To control it (because I found the lever frame Modratec provides to be unsightly), I purchased several of Model Signal Engineering’s lever frames from the UK; these are fully functional Armstrong-type levers, complete with working catch handles- but just 4" long.
I use dual-cab control: my ultimate goal is a layout where I can play block operator while my kids run trains. At the rate I am going, though, the interlocking will probably be ready by the time I have grandchildren.
It’s interesting to see how many modelers are frustrated engineers or dispatchers: I probably qualify as a frustrated block operat[:D]r!
Thanks for a Filosophy Friday subject Brent.
I got sold on the DCC as soon as I saw it. The clubs DC “Block system” was a nightmare, though to be fair it had “growed like Topsy” with no regard to circuitry diagrams, and sometimes logic. That DCC did away with a whole lot of wiring though was a bonus to me as the real attraction was that you could have two locomotives carrying out separate switching duties in the same yard “Block”. The later addition of sound, in small doses, has been another bonus to me.
At shows we run the DCC modular layout with the computer r