Nope - A DCC operator can operate more than one locomotive at a time. However, I guess it depends how you want to define the word “operate”.
If I have one train out on the mainline and another locomotive switching cars in the yard then I call that operating two locomotives. The switcher preoccupies my attention; the train on the mainline can run with less supervision. Both locomotives are controlled with my Power Cab throttle and both can be accessed by it at any given moment.
Tom
Mike, you still seem to miss the point.
I agree, direct radio would be a better system if we were starting today.
The point of DCC is not one person controlling multiple trains, the point is multiple people each controlling their own train, sometimes in close proximity to each other without the need for separate control blocks, and a method of assignment for those control blocks.
So yes, lone operators don’t need that aspect of DCC.
Most people in this hobby are simply not going to change large investments in infrastructure, that’s why it has taken DCC 25 years to reach 60% usage and finally become the deffacto starting point for most new people.
Sheldon
Someone please hand him a DT throttle and let him play with three or four locomotives, each separated by a scale mile of track, no two locos the same, and say that DCC doesn’t offer me more utility than a DC locomotive.
The thread right next to this one, at the moment, provides convincing support for just slipping in a motor only decoder.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/744/t/284801.aspx
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/744/t/284801.aspx
Since internal links just do not work properly I refer you to the FT Stewart thread.
As for the remainder of the DCC operating, controlling and running distinctions I will just rely in my trusty dictionary.
You all can remain clinging to your favourite illusions about how capable and useful DCC is…for a single operator.
aka I don’t have a good argument to present to keep this discussion going.
Spike is quite an outlier to saay the least.
Rich
I have to say I don’t completely understand this example? A scale mile of track is about 60’. Interestingly the typical block length on my DC layout will be between 40-60 feet, with the average freight train being 20-25 feet.
What am I going to do with these randomly placed locos? Are they going to be moving at the same time?
Even if I had DCC, I personally would only “operate” one “train” at a time.
Now, Like Tom describes, I may have a train running in “display” mode on the mainline while I work the yard.
My layout is designed so that DCC offers no real advantage for that function. I have blocks, signals, and dedicated routes that “display” mode trains can on with no real attention. We were doing that in DC long before DCC was thought of.
I’m not discounting those who want to “control” two trains at once, I’m just admitting I’m not up for that task. A train is either on a dedicated safe continious route, or it is the only train I am operating.
But none of this negates the virtues of DCC for multiple operators.
Although, with good planning there are a number of DC control schemes tha come very close to the same streamlined operation of multiple trains, some with ergonomic advantages over DCC.
Sheldon
You still don;t grasp how putting the control and signal in one is SUPERIOR to the way it was done before DCC. A tiny, easily lost and/or corrupted AC signal sumperimposed on a steady DC voltage - that’s how many pre-DCC command control systems worked, and it was not nearly as robust - that tiny signal could easily get lost int he noise, and if they made it any bigger, there would be enough of an AC component to create issues. Such sumperimposed signals has been used for ages to allow power companies to remotely control substations, and consumers got a version of it witht he X10 home control stuff that more or less started the home automation craze. But those systems inject a short burst at the zero crossing of sine wave AC. The model train controls put a steady DC on the track, and then superimposed a small AC control signal. The CTC-16 was one like this, and very well documented in MR. In fact, I was about to start building one (actually the improved CTC-16e version) when word came out about the NMRA working on a standard.
ANd the technology used for the signal distribution etc. has nothing to do with ergonomics.
Digitrax throttles have 2 knobs, so yes, one person can CONTROL two locos at the same time. And there’s still an advantage with DCC even with just one person running trains - you can pull one in to the station, stop it, and just by selecting a different address, start up a second train. Yes, one at a time, but no toggles, no cab assignment.
The only way yo get what you want is if all the direct radio locos were battery powered, AND completely isolated from the rails. The the track could have DCC on it to run DCC locos, or DC to run DC locos - but you’d still have the same issue running DC and DCC. So pick 2 - direct radio and DCC at the same time, or direct radio and DC at the same time. The concept of a fixed track voltage and DC locos just don’t join. Either the track voltage varies to control loco speed as in DC< or the track colt
You guys are expending way too much energy on a troll …
Mark.
Somehow the question of “can I use a locomotive without a decoder on a DCC powered layout” has become the equivalent of those silly arguments about CD audio in the 1980s.
Those arguments were along the lines of “Vinyl is superior as it captures all of the sound versus digital, which only captures some of the sound.”
The same people now tout the superiority of high priced speaker wires with electrons optimized at the atomic level via treatment with liquid nitrogen during the application of a 10 kV DC de-polarising voltage. Your MP3s will never sound better!
Revisiting the original question:
Yes, you can run an analog (decoder-less) locomotive with a DCC system. But why bother?
Decoders are not that expensive today, and DCC offers so many advantages.
But the best vinyl is better, and those speaker wires are BS - just my opinion, been collecting vinyl and building HiFi speakers since the 70’s.
DC and DCC - yes, do one or the other, even if you do it with a DPDT switch on the same layout…
Sheldon
So was Christopher Columbus…and Richard Trevithick.
Views from beyond the fringe can help broaden your horizons.
I’ve actually built a 10x20’ layout in about 8 months, with two other people.
That from planning to running without derailments or electrical faults.
Total trackage is approximately 200’ of mainline track containing three reversing loops (one reversing loop is polarity controlled by the turnout motor switch and a snap relay, DCC ready, the other two are not suitable for automating because they also function together as a giant passing siding) and 16 blocks (three of which have several power control sections totalling 15 additional controllable sections) more than 50’ of yard, an engine yard (needs a turntable) and 30 turnouts (approximately) most of which are motor actuated. The collision points on the layout are currently electrically blocked to prevent collisions apart from one crossing which is wired for that but not yet connected to the turnout switch.
The entire layout comes apart in five sections. The wiring is all labeled and eq
Analogue always has more data for the simple reason that reality is analogue.
Quantum physics aside, we humans experience the World in analogue.
That’s why a vinyl recording (or magnetic tape or silver oxide photo) will always be superior.
The discovery of quantum physics is the ultimate irony in that context.
DCC has some great features but for one operator, and up to about three or four operators on a big enough home sized layout, it offers no advantages over DC
At least the OP got his answer and bought some decoders.
I switched to DCC because I liked electronics since 1954.
Rich
Mike,
I understand your point and experiences, but others have different goals.
Many want wireless throttles.
Many do not want to have to assign blocks to throttles.
I am a DC operator, I understand your points now. Again I think you should learn how to just say your main point, in stead of dancing around it for others to “figure out”.
I will offer more thoughts later when I am not working, possibly in a separate thread.
Sheldon
No the question of dc on a dcc can be relivent to anyone, it is to me. DCC engines are generaly lighter and have less tractive force and with todays wheel sets and trucks unless you run really long trans or very hilly is a moot point. But as in my case you want to run track cleaner cars like the CMX or some who run muliple track cleaner cars, it is quite importaint and it can give a use to those engines you may never convert like my small fleet of Kato NW2’s
I don’t have a single loco I converted to DCC that is lighter than the same loco as a DC loco - I’ve ADDED weight if anything (not that decoders are heavy) because all I did was add the decoder - none of the existing weight was removed.
In SOME cases (although with the latest speaker designs, it’s less of an issue) you might have to mill some weight away to fit the speaker for a SOUND decoder, which of course will result in a loco being lighter than the DC only counterpart.
–Randy
I should have said of the current RTR, must have been thinking of my Kato NW2’s. Haven’t seen one yet converted to DCC without removing metal, especialy if with sound.
I have a Kato NW2 ho scale that I put a decoder in, under the fuel tank, and I removed an old decoder to do it, no metal removed.
Never heard of that. I guess the fuel tank is just empty space? How did you run the wires?