Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

It is Dennis,

 

Many thanks.

 

Will you be at Warley, or Peterborough? If so, please bring them along.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Since I've no wish to restart the old DCC/DC debate, I'll not be too argumentative. However, to control every single function in operating a model railway from just one handset - locos, points, macros, signals, etc, etc, seems to me to be a potential recipe for chaos. 

 

Though I can understand (I can, I can!) how some might be 'seduced' by DCC-operation of locos, it's surely best to control routes, points and signals from a model signal box set up, isn't it? 

 

That's much more like a real railway's operation to me - old-fashioned, at least. 

Edited November 20, 2018 by Tony Wright

[New Haven Neil]

I suppose that depends if you want to be a signalman (or signaller in modern parlance) or an engine driver?  I prefer the latter, so walk around control (of either type!) is more important to my enjoyment than standing in one place with a 'Wurlitzer' control panel.  The ability of _DCC to be able to unplug my controller from one place and move to another while the train continues to run tipped the balance, but it's not essential to my preferred mode of operation.

[St Enodoc]

I suppose that depends if you want to be a signalman (or signaller in modern parlance) or an engine driver?  I prefer the latter, so walk around control (of either type!) is more important to my enjoyment than standing in one place with a 'Wurlitzer' control panel.  The ability of _DCC to be able to unplug my controller from one place and move to another while the train continues to run tipped the balance, but it's not essential to my preferred mode of operation.

I prefer to be a signalman, so as Tony has seen I have separated the roles of driver (DCC wireless walkaround) and signalman (Modratec mechanically-interlocked lever frame).

 

Each to their own!

[richard i]

Surely it is just good practice even if it is all dcc to have them separated. So if some thing goes down you have not lost everything. All your eggs in one basket and all that. For that matter that adage would apply for dc too, IMHO.

Richard

[Jesse Sim]

I must apologise, I always tend to start a debate....then go AWOL for 3 days, come back and see the destruction I have caused. 

[Michael Edge]

I suppose that depends if you want to be a signalman (or signaller in modern parlance) or an engine driver?  I prefer the latter, so walk around control (of either type!) is more important to my enjoyment than standing in one place with a 'Wurlitzer' control panel.  The ability of _DCC to be able to unplug my controller from one place and move to another while the train continues to run tipped the balance, but it's not essential to my preferred mode of operation.

 

That's how we control Carlisle, unplug the controller, go to where the train is heading - and get plenty of exercise with the 100ft walk from one end to another......

[Lecorbusier]

Since I've no wish to restart the old DCC/DC debate, I'll not be too argumentative. However, to control every single function in operating a model railway from just one handset - locos, points, macros, signals, etc, etc, seems to me to be a potential recipe for chaos. 

 

Though I can understand (I can, I can!) how some might be 'seduced' by DCC-operation of locos, it's surely best to control routes, points and signals from a model signal box set up, isn't it? 

 

That's much more like a real railway's operation to me - old-fashioned, at least. 

So ... to move the debate on from the binary conflict!

 

Being pre-grouping I am certainly looking at old fashioned operation.

 

Using Protocab the power (think coal and water) is actually on board the loco and you drive the loco using the hand held controller - no powered tracks or under base board wiring.

 

I am working out the signalling and point rodding so it is a completely separate mechanical system which comes back to a lever frame positioned near the signal box ... again no wiring and manually operated - I might even look at interlocking as Howard Bolton has now produced etches for doing this..

 

I know it is a relatively simple layout (double mainline/single slip/ wharf/headshunt /lie by) but it will hopefully be pretty near the way the real thing operated?

 

The downsides will be remembering to keep the batteries charged and keeping fingers crossed Protocab doesn't go bust any time soon

 

hmmmm!

Edited November 21, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[thegreenhowards]

Since I've no wish to restart the old DCC/DC debate, I'll not be too argumentative. However, to control every single function in operating a model railway from just one handset - locos, points, macros, signals, etc, etc, seems to me to be a potential recipe for chaos. 

 

Though I can understand (I can, I can!) how some might be 'seduced' by DCC-operation of locos, it's surely best to control routes, points and signals from a model signal box set up, isn't it? 

 

That's much more like a real railway's operation to me - old-fashioned, at least.

 

Tony,

 

You know what a useless signalman I would make. When operating LB, I think I was told off after 50% of moves for forgetting to pull the signal off or putting it back! With that in mind, I intend to automate all signals on my layout probably using IRDots, but I’m currently at the reading up stage.

 

As for points, I like the mimic panel type of operation, and I use that for the scenic side (on DC). But for the fiddle yard I intend to use DCC macros. I think the ability to type, say, Macro #1 and change all the points required to operate loop line 1 is very powerful. There’s no ‘non prototypical’ issue as fiddle yards aren’t prototypical to start with. At the moment, I have to walk 30ft to the other end of the loft to operate the fiddle yard manually which makes one person operation fairly impractical....and also results in a few pile ups when I change the wrong points!

 

I know it’s possible to do this on DC as well - Tony Teague’s layout has some very impressive control panels, with enough wire to reach half way to the moon, but they enable one to call up a fiddle yard road and for all the points to operate with one push of a button. However, all that wire scares me, so the ability to do achieve the same thing with just two buzz wires and the local wiring to the points is attractive. I will have a separate buzz for the points so allowing me to isolate problems if required. I know you don’t like DCC operation of locos and I quite understand why, but surely this is a useful attribute?

 

Andy

[St Enodoc]

Tony,

 

You know what a useless signalman I would make. When operating LB, I think I was told off after 50% of moves for forgetting to pull the signal off or putting it back! With that in mind, I intend to automate all signals on my layout probably using IRDots, but I’m currently at the reading up stage.

 

As for points, I like the mimic panel type of operation, and I use that for the scenic side (on DC). But for the fiddle yard I intend to use DCC macros. I think the ability to type, say, Macro #1 and change all the points required to operate loop line 1 is very powerful. There’s no ‘non prototypical’ issue as fiddle yards aren’t prototypical to start with. At the moment, I have to walk 30ft to the other end of the loft to operate the fiddle yard manually which makes one person operation fairly impractical....and also results in a few pile ups when I change the wrong points!

 

I know it’s possible to do this on DC as well - Tony Teague’s layout has some very impressive control panels, with enough wire to reach half way to the moon, but they enable one to call up a fiddle yard road and for all the points to operate with one push of a button. However, all that wire scares me, so the ability to do achieve the same thing with just two buzz wires and the local wiring to the points is attractive. I will have a separate buzz for the points so allowing me to isolate problems if required. I know you don’t like DCC operation of locos and I quite understand why, but surely this is a useful attribute?

 

Andy

I do this using NCE Mini Panels and push buttons on a mimic panel - like a digital version of a diode matrix.

[Clive Mortimore]

I would just like a system that eliminates operator error................................and "Clive go and sit in the corner and don't touch anything" is the only one I know.

[Tony Wright]

That's how we control Carlisle, unplug the controller, go to where the train is heading - and get plenty of exercise with the 100ft walk from one end to another......

And great fun it is, too, Mike,

 

But the signals/points/routes are all controlled separately from the loco control, aren't they?

[Barry O]

Of course you can use wireless dcc hand sets and go walkabout. Far more fun!

Operating a layout from 3 floors above it can cause some consternation among exhibition viewers...ask Nicktoix about it!

 

Baz

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

You know what a useless signalman I would make. When operating LB, I think I was told off after 50% of moves for forgetting to pull the signal off or putting it back! With that in mind, I intend to automate all signals on my layout probably using IRDots, but I’m currently at the reading up stage.

 

As for points, I like the mimic panel type of operation, and I use that for the scenic side (on DC). But for the fiddle yard I intend to use DCC macros. I think the ability to type, say, Macro #1 and change all the points required to operate loop line 1 is very powerful. There’s no ‘non prototypical’ issue as fiddle yards aren’t prototypical to start with. At the moment, I have to walk 30ft to the other end of the loft to operate the fiddle yard manually which makes one person operation fairly impractical....and also results in a few pile ups when I change the wrong points!

 

I know it’s possible to do this on DC as well - Tony Teague’s layout has some very impressive control panels, with enough wire to reach half way to the moon, but they enable one to call up a fiddle yard road and for all the points to operate with one push of a button. However, all that wire scares me, so the ability to do achieve the same thing with just two buzz wires and the local wiring to the points is attractive. I will have a separate buzz for the points so allowing me to isolate problems if required. I know you don’t like DCC operation of locos and I quite understand why, but surely this is a useful attribute?

 

Andy

I hope the telling off was just mild chastisement, Andy,

 

LB's operation is fundamentally-different from one-man operation. When Gilbert visited on Monday, because he seems to 'refuse' to operate, I did everything - hence the exercise! I suppose I was lucky that, in over two hours of intensive operation (with a break for lunch) I only forgot to set three roads correctly and only had one (propelled wagon) derailment. I say 'lucky', but it's usual to have no derailments at all in the 51-train cycle of operation. 

 

Compare this with a week ago, when the old gits came to operate. Two drove trains, one was signalman and I operated the fiddle yard. It was immense fun, so thanks chaps - thanks indeed! It was the best running session LB has ever had (we're learning), with almost no (operator) faults, and no derailments, layout or stock problems. Two hours - 51 train movements (including plenty of shunting) - and it just fizzed by. 

 

What does all this 'prove', if anything? That LB was designed for more than one-man operation, and it works? As you (and everyone else) know, I wouldn't touch DCC with a barge pole. Anyway, it would complicate LB's operation to the point of increasing the time to run the sequence by (probably) 100%. How? Let's, say, take the operation of the 'Lizzie'. Three A4s are kitted out with a headboard for that duty - 60014, 60024 and 60027. When it's the time for the non-stop to run, I just follow my instructions, set the road in the fiddle yard and flick a switch. The signalman (it's always a man!), reading his notes, pulls off the Up fast boards, and the driver (reading his), just opens the throttle. There's no faffing around putting the loco's address into some magic gadget. No matter which A4 it is, it just goes - fast! Imagine having to key in 45 locos' addresses, every time - assuming (with failing eyesight) we can see which loco it might actually be. No thanks.

 

And, I still maintain, that running everything off one controller is non-railway-like (old-fashioned railways) and a potential for chaos.

 

When you come next week, we'll drive LB together!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Tony Wright

[grahame]

I suppose that depends if you want to be a signalman (or signaller in modern parlance) or an engine driver? 

I don't see those as an either/or option.

 

Oddly, for me, it's about providing and running a railway service. In my mind, whatever mechanical/electrical/electronic trickery is employed in helping make that happen is rather background and somewhat irrelevant to the modelling activity I prefer.

 

G.

[D.Platt]

Morning Tony,

 

I don’t get down to the two exhibitions that you mentioned,I don’t think you come to Manchester so maybe Doncaster next year , now I know that they will be useful to you I’ll save them till our paths cross .

 

Dennis

[Jol Wilkinson]

While DCC has many claimed benefits over DC, there are some disadvantages that are rarely mentioned while those of DC usually are enthusiastically proclaimed by the digital enthusiasts.

 

My own layout London Road is analogue controlled and even Tony W has admitted  it runs fairly well (despite being P4) under exhibition conditions. The local S4 area group of which I am a member is building a group layout which will be DCC controlled, so I am getting to understand the pro's and con's.

 

From my experiences so far I have learned that;

• Carefully built locos with effective multiple pickups run very well with a good DC controller.
• DC wiring isn't that difficult if you approach it logically.
• DC wiring is reliable if you use good quality components (and that's under exhibition conditions).
• The DCC  two wire benefit thing is something of a fallacy.
• DCC can be much more expensive.
• A "mimic" control panel is more intuitive and easier to use for occasional or inexperienced operators than a signal frame or poking at a DCC handset with multiple buttons.

That's just a short list, by no means fully comprehensive.

 

I think that some modellers, particularly those that tend to use RTR models "out of the box" see DCC as a way of achieving better running and reliability. Add to that the "gimmicks" available (lights, sound, etc). that many see as part of a model railway including LED effects such as disco lighting, blacksmiths' fires, etc. then DCC clearly has a great attraction. A look at the DCC section of RMweb would also appear to confirm it isn't always that straightforward either. For some, it even seems that railway electronics is their first interest, the models being almost incidental.

 

For our project layout the proposal is DCC control of the locos and a mimic panel for point and signal setting. As it is a group project for use by several people with differing skills and interests, this seems to be the most pragmatic approach.

[gr.king]

Bar the puzzling decision in the final paragraph I agree with everything said above by Mr Wilkinson, only more so if that makes any sense.

[Chamby]

While DCC has many claimed benefits over DC, there are some disadvantages that are rarely mentioned while those of DC usually are enthusiastically proclaimed by the digital enthusiasts.

 

My own layout London Road is analogue controlled and even Tony W has admitted  it runs fairly well (despite being P4) under exhibition conditions. The local S4 area group of which I am a member is building a group layout which will be DCC controlled, so I am getting to understand the pro's and con's.

 

From my experiences so far I have learned that;

 

• Carefully built locos with effective multiple pickups run very well with a good DC controller.
• DC wiring isn't that difficult if you approach it logically.
• DC wiring is reliable if you use good quality components (and that's under exhibition conditions).
• The DCC  two wire benefit thing is something of a fallacy.
• DCC can be much more expensive.
• A "mimic" control panel is more intuitive and easier to use for occasional or inexperienced operators than a signal frame or poking at a DCC handset with multiple buttons.

That's just a short list, by no means fully comprehensive.

 

I think that some modellers, particularly those that tend to use RTR models "out of the box" see DCC as a way of achieving better running and reliability. Add to that the "gimmicks" available (lights, sound, etc). that many see as part of a model railway including LED effects such as disco lighting, blacksmiths' fires, etc. then DCC clearly has a great attraction. A look at the DCC section of RMweb would also appear to confirm it isn't always that straightforward either. For some, it even seems that railway electronics is their first interest, the models being almost incidental.

 

For our project layout the proposal is DCC control of the locos and a mimic panel for point and signal setting. As it is a group project for use by several people with differing skills and interests, this seems to be the most pragmatic approach.

Whilst I agree that the two wire thing is over-stated, wiring DCC is still so much simpler than with analogue control. I have three pairs of buses.. one for the up line, one for the down, and one for the accessories (lighting, signals, point motors etc.). That is just six wires across every baseboard join. All I have to do when adding something, is wire it in to the appropriate bus on the same board. No running long wires round the layout to the control panel and back. And no isolating sections required either!

 

That is the part I like. There are two downsides for me: firstly the fickle nature of chips and their programming, where for some inexplicable reason, sometimes they just play up, and need reprogramming. Not often, but occasionally enough to irritate. And secondly, the need for ‘stay alive’ capacitance particularly with short wheelbase locomotives... it’s a fact that the smaller the locomotive, the greater the need for a stay-alive but the less space you have to install it.

 

Having gone the DCC route, I still have mixed feelings about it and if I was to wind back the clock knowing what I do now, and start all over again I’m not 100% sure if I would go down the DCC road. But then, running a long rake of 16T empties behind my WD 2-8-0 fitted with Locoman’s wonderful 8F sound chip, it is just a sublime experience that takes you to another level. Or a rake of Deltic hauled maroon’s accelerating away, with Biff’s sound file giving just the right amount of thrash. That, for me at least, makes it worthwhile. I only wish there were more good quality sound files around... there are some really duff ones out there too that just grate on the ear.

 

So yes, DCC is more fickle, it can be so much better than analogue, but also much more of a pain!

 

Phil.

[johndon]

On South Pelaw Junction, we have a dedicated signalman and operate as follows:

 

1. Fiddle Yard - this is controlled via a laptop, JMRI and CBUS to allow routes through the yard to be set with just a couple of clicks.

2. Scenic Section - all points, signals and ground signals are controlled via a 'mimic' panel and CBUS.

3. We do use DCC for driving the trains.  With lots of shunting, double heading and banking, DCC, for us at least, has advantages over DC.  Drivers are expected, at all times, to drive to the signals.

 

John

Edited November 21, 2018 by johndon

[jamie92208]

A very interesting debate that will doubt go on longer than I'm around.    Green Ayre is Analog and will probably always remain so.   There are two main reasons.

 

a) The expense of equipping all the locos with chips, plus the new controllers.

b) my own hamfisted loco building that has left some with live bodywork and occasional shorts on pointwork, especially from front bogies where the wheel rims either hit the frames or the slidebars.

 

I did once spend a weekend operating a DCC layout at Warley (Hochstadt) and was very impressed with the ease of control when shunting.   I have considered converting one 0-6-0T to DCC and using it to shunt the coal yard.  As I've wired the layout using the two wire method this would be fairly easy to do with a relay to switch the area from DC to DCC when the points giving access from the main line are operated.  This would enable a DC loco to bring a train in or collect one.

 

Jamie

Edited November 21, 2018 by jamie92208

[Clive Mortimore]

Total Luddite here, I still use electric pencil and studs to energise my solenoids when route setting. Each section has two switches, one for power on and off the other for controller selection, I must remember to switch them on or off as appropriate. There are wonderful but not fool proof isolating switches for the isolating sections. The switches are on the control panel for the colour light signals and the signals built, many will be platform mounted so until I build the platforms they are staying in the box.

 

This morning I had an express hauled by a Black Five and a six car Met -Cam and Derby DMU circulating on the mainlines as I watched a BR type 2 from the far platform back down to the diesel loco stabling point. It was lovely.

 

I really don't care what others do to recreate their versions of railway in model form. I am more than happy with mine.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[Bucoops]

I really don't care what others do to recreate their versions of railway in model form. I am more than happy with mine.

 

And THAT is what is important

[Chris Knight]

I submit this post somewhat tentatively as I agree with Tony's thoughts that we have been here many times before. As a committed analogue man for more years than I care to

remember I  had to compromise when Graham Taverner converted his WR shed layout Kensal Green to DCC a few years ago and it was either ' learn or leave'. I must admit

that I,somewhat grudgingly, had to agree that on  an MPD type scenario the benefits of bypassing numerous switched sections were considerable. I insisted however that our

mainline 'Horfield' remain analogue at 'my' end when the layout was upgraded(?) to DCC.

 

My rather ambivalent attitude continues although now as part of the Bournemouth West team primarily used as the station pilot operator where the need for regular coupling/uncoupling

reliably is paramount (using the excellent precimodels system) I am seeing its benefits whilst still getting frustrated with occasional glitches.

 

I would suggest though to anybody wishing to enjoy the latest developments digital control offers, just have a look at the B'm'th Belle departing West station as depicted on the BRM 

downloaded Dec. DVD. Pure magic,for me anyway.

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for all the comments.

 

Just one point, if I may, regarding 'model' sound. 

 

I had a chap round yesterday whose job is computer-programming. He knows a lot about DCC. Do you know what pleased me the most when we ran LB? He loved the 'natural' sound that the trains made as they ran. No artificial noise, no electronic gimmickery, just a mechanical 'roar' from the locos (not a whirr-whirr) and an entirely natural ckickety-clack at rail joints. 

 

Who needs DCC sound?