is there any reason you couldn’t do that with DCC?
Sheldon.
Why can’t you have turnout motors and signaling systems on DCC? As a matter of fact there is a vast assortment of products. Some with wireless control. Automatic reversing units have made return loops and wyes seamless and simple. Some signaling systems are even plug and play. Optical detection can be troublesome but there are things that can be done. I’m not a big proponent of resistor wheel sets but there are other systems.
As far as soldering every rail. I’ve done it to my portable modules with just a pair of feeders. But my track lengths are short. The module joiner tracks rely on good joiners but they are short enough that most locomotives span both sides and the power buss is connected with automotive grade connectors.
Don’t want to argue about it. Just trying to dispell some myths.
Pete.
Are you asking me about my personal choice?
I could, but I don’t need or want the expense of 145 decoders, 10 wireless throttles, boosters and circuit breakers for a 1500 sq ft layout with 120 turnouts and 1,000 ft of track.
I know a fair amount about DCC and all the options for turnout control, siginaling, etc.
I have used DCC for many hours on other layouts.
Even if I had the money that I have invested in my 10 Aristo Throttles and the relays and wiring for my system, it would not pay for a DCC equivalent, not by a long shot.
Pete, I don’t want to clutter up this thread with the details of my control system, but it is not like any DC system you have ever seen.
Short feature list:
- Signals, detection and CTC
- Tower control
- Wireless walk around throttles
- ATC - Autoimatic train control - run a red signal on the main, your train stops.
- Constant brightness lighting in
I think that soldering every rail joint, especially with DCC, is a good practice. I get around this but only because I drop a pair of feeders from the outside of the rails on every section of track. I got tired of stalls on my last layout due to loss of connectivity.
Rich
Well, I don’t know for sure. But I know guys who converted medium sized DC layouts do DCC without adding feaders, they just used their existing DC block feeders every 20, 30, 50 feet depending on the nature of their layouts. Worked fine.
And yes they were all old school like me with soldered rail joints.
I can’t imagine not soldering rail joints?
Sheldon
as you’ve confirmed, feeders aren’t required for DCC
DCC doesn’t require wiring each block thru some switching mechanism to each throttle
but this thead made me realize that DCC often needs overload protection (circuit breakers) to prevent shorts from killing the entire layout
so maybe DCC solves one set of problems (cab control wiring) but introduces another set of problems (overload protection)
the club layout i’m fortunate to work on, has two dual track mainlines: B&O and Western Maryland with several blocks in each direction, each protected with a circuit breaker. (never seen this mentioned anywhere else).
but each PSX circuit breaker also support block detection, making it easier to supprt signals
yea they’re too bright (easily fixed with an adjustable regulator)
2302
Greg,
You have just made again the point I am always trying to make about this. Once you introduce larger layout size, detection, signaling, CTC or advanced turnout controls, suddenly wiring a layout using DCC as the locomotive control is not so simple, and often not much different from advanced DC layouts.
My new layout will have 15 primary signal blocks, and 14 interlocking “sub blocks” on the double track mainline.
Dispatcher, tower operators, train operators, will be able to glance at multiple layout maps and know where every train is.
The big point of my control system in intergration.
For those who understand CTC, here is the simple example. When the dispatcher sets a route, and then gives a given train authortiy on that route, the cab for that train is automaticly connected to the trackage where authority has been granted.
There is no redundant motion of operating cab selectors and CTC separately.
Without a dispatcher, train operators can become their own tower operators and preform dispatcher functions at each interlocking. Much the way many DCC operators throw manual or electric turnouts as they walk around the layout. And they give themselves track authority at each tower with the push of a single button.
Three trains in each direction will be able to make their way around the mainline at the same time.
But back to DCC. It is a fine system if it suits your needs and wants, but to suggest it is automaticly or always “easier to wire” is a myth. Depends on your goals.
Sheldon
Hello All,
I should have taken that at even-money!!!
Hope this helps.
sounds like your saying DCC makes “layout control” harder
in general, locomotive control and layout control are separate systems and layout control requires a lot of infrastructure
but DCC makes block occupancy easier, if not more reliable and i just explained that some DCC circuit breakers and auto-reversers also support block detection which is a step towards more advanced layout control (e.g signaling)
the club uses stationary decoders (DS64s) for turnout control which minimizes turnout wiring and is also a step toward advanced layout control because all the DS64s are remotely accessible
in this club’s case, DCC provides some of the infrastructure needed for advanced layout control
esp32/12 processor boards can make CMRI-like nodes for communicating block occupancy, turnout feedback and signal control supporting CTC – the final infrastructure component – wireless
Greg, no, I’m not saying that at all.
I’m saying there are lots of variables bassed on your choices. And that DCC does not automaticly make other aspects of layout control easier.
But, as a DC operator with 55 years of experiance on a number of advanced DC layouts, I don’t know that I agree that locomotive control and other aspects of layout control are automaticly or always separate. That is very much a DCC concept.
I have 15 blocks that need detection? How would you do that with DCC? At what cost? Actually I ha
The difference is, as is often said, DCC controls the locomotive, DC controls the track. Which means the basic infrastructure for blocks (layout control) is already established in DC.
DCC very much resembles what aviation calls “see and avoid”. There is no inherent infrastructure to avoid collisions - it’s up to each engineer to avoid being on the same track at the same time as someone else. The block infrastructure is available and can be added, but is not inherent to DCC.
For a one person layout it matters not. DCC provides sound, DC doesn’t. Otherwise, both are equally simple and suitable for a one person layout.
When you add the 2nd (and more) trains running on the layout, complexity goes up exponentially no matter which system you use.
With DC, you need block wiring infrastructure, and depending on how automated you want to be, means to connect the correct block(s) to the correct locomotive(s).
With DCC, multiple trains operate on “see and avoid” which requires alert engineers. The more track tightly shared between multiple trains, the more alert the engineers must be - and the more critical planning for short circuits must be. Or you can install block control to assist or automate the “see and avoid” (I think you called this layout control). The prototype uses a combination of rules, train orders, schedules (time tables), and a dispatcher to prevent collisions using a track block infrastructure.
Modular layouts that vary from setup to setup have to use DCC and alert engineers because the modifications to infrastructure from layout configuration changes are just too time consuming for 2 days of operation. Even then, the planning and implementation required for short circuit handling on what is essentially a display layout drives DCC complexity very quickly.
Fred W
I have always found that to be a hugely misleading comment.
-Kevin
i don’t believe your length post properly describes some aspects of DCC. I provide answers to some of your questions
sounds like you’re saying control is partially built in with DC but not DCC, despite me pointing out that the PSX product, as an example provides support for control though it is used to support locomotive control
as i just said, could be built into a circuit breaker. but i’m familiar with the Basic Block Detector where a 4 detector board can had for ~$30 and i’ve built pulse transformer detectors for far less
what do you mean by “propulsion circuit”? the throttle?
i designed and built an interlock controller for 44 turnouts for ~$40
[quote user=“ATLANTIC CENTRAL”]
I have operated DCC layouts where one choice was to use the Digitrax throttle to throw switches - that was terrible. Why push 5 buttons I can hardly see when I can push one button on a control panel where I am already standing anyway?[
Greg, You still don’t get it.
I’m not suggesting anyone should use my system or my approach.
Yes, when someone with your talents designs and builds stuff, it is just as afordable as what I do, but off the shelf plug and play DCC hardware as taken decades to come down in price.
My position, based on my experiance wiring PLC’s years ago in industry, helping others wire large DCC layouts with lots of power districts, stationary decoders, wireless throttles, etc, is that the point to point wire count is pretty high - much like what I do.
You build a circuit board on the bench and install it with whatever connections necessary. I build a modular relay panel on the bench and install it with whatever connections are necessary.
If we each have 20 turnouts and 20 pushbuttons, the field connection count will be the same. You have to get 2 wires to each of those devices and so do I.
Agreed, some of the basic hardware has been around a while, but the unified programing and control systems for it have been in constant evolution and was much harder years ago.
Many of my circuits are repetitive as well, used over and over. Only the multi turnout route control and the relaterd signal logic in a given interlocking is custom to that location. And even that is a building block system of the same circuits.
I have seen the photos you have posted of some of your projects. I see lots of wires.
Here is a sample of my system, this is from a layout I wired with my system for one of my friends.
This wiring handled 4 control blocks and 6 route determining turnouts. This layout did not have signaling or CTC and used manual turnouts that had position feedback to the control circuits.
The relay boards you see handle the one most connection intense part of my system, the push button cab selection circuit.
Again, ALL I AM SAYING,
Gotta feel somewhat sorry for jjdamnit here. He coulda been a rich man. [:'(] [(-D]
Yeah, this thread has gone off the rails, so to speak, but not necessarily off topic. It is just waaaay more than the OP was looking for.
My own experience with DCC wiring is that it can be simple, but it does get more involved and tedious as the layout becomes more complex. But, the wiring itself is not that complex. As Sheldon points out, it is still a two-wire protocol for each device or, at least, a two-wire protocol for each function on each device. It would probably be more beneficial to start a separate thread on the topic of DC Versus DCC Wiring. [swg]
Rich
are you sure you’re not getting it? – you seem to be advocating that your approach(s) are better if not less expensive that DCC
here’s a panel of PSXs and ARs at the club. not many wires. top wires are from a booster not shown on the left. bottom wires are the bus wires that run under the track.
this would replace the cab control wiring and i believe demonstrates that DCC wiring can be simpler that DC cab control wiring
of course when you look under the layout, there is a wire run for the track buses. but just one single cable for the Loconet that connects the stationary decoders (DS64s) controlling the tortise machines at each “node”.
yes there are relatively short (few ft) wires between the tortise machines and the DS64s, the machines are not connected to some panel 10s of ft away.
this approach using “nodes” significantly reduces the amount of wiring under a layout, at least the lengths of wire
i don’t recall you explaining how you control your switch machines from panels, how far those panels are from the turnouts, how many panels you might have.
2566
A few more thoughts:
Yes, a lot of my statements are “I” statements. I’m not in a club, been there, done that.
Many elements of DCC were more expensive 20 years ago, like 145 decoders I would need.
And yes, my train propulsion is highly integrated into my turnout control. All interlockings are not separate blocks that need to be assigned. They are power routed X sections that are correctly powered automatically based on the selected route.
So every time I throw a mainline turnout, those relays power the turnout motor, power the frog correctly, direct the track power thru the interlocking, and provide the logic path for the interlocking signals.
This cuts the number of control blocks in half on the typical layout.
One last thought, even if I used DCC and solid state layout control logic, I (yes I) would still want throttles and control panels with tactile buttons and lights.
I would never have a computer CTC panel or a smart phone throttle. So there we are, back to devices that need wires going to them.
Sheldon
because of your preference yes
but a computer controlled CTC panel, even if it has mechanical switches and lamps would only need two connections to the layout
- the loconet cable to control the tortoise machines
- a single pair of wires connecting nodes for signaling, block occupancy and turnout feedback
Greg, my wiring is decentralized just like your nodes.
Tower panels are located at each interlocking, with corresponding relay panels for cab selection, signaling and turnout control right there at the interlocking and panel.
Wiring between each interlocking is minimal.
Thre is a throttle buss for each of the 6 throttles that goes all around the layout from the Aristo throttle base stations.
The only really long runs are cat5 control cables back to the dispatchers panel.
Sheldon
But you would still have to build and wire the panel? That’s the hard work?
Sheldon