2 wires? - your 'avin a larff.

[Sir TophamHatt]

The problem I see with the whole DC vs DCC argument is that DC users fail to accept it's the future, while DCC users will come across as bigoted by trying to convince DC users of the advantages. This then wades into DC users suggesting they can "do the same".

 

While being fairly new to the hobby, I've never read that DCC would be two wires only. I get the feeling that someone said it once, yet nobody now can really remember. This isn't PPI or mis-sold this or that, that a certain generation feel they have been coerced into getting an interest only mortgage they couldn't afford.

 

Like it or not, I can't think of any new locos that aren't DCC ready these days. 20 years ago, not many were. That alone is a clear indicator of where the hobby is going.

 

Just as Dixons stopped selling VCR players and Dyson no longer manufacture corded vacuum cleaners, you can be a little ignorant to the future or swallow your pride and accept that one day, a locomotive you want simply won't have a DC option.

It'll only take one manufacturer to do take that step for them all to start.

 

Sorry I seem a little callus in certain views. It's just what I see.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Sir TophamHatt

[newbryford]

Some DC users do accept that it is the future but is expensive to convert a large existing collection.

I get that side of their reasoning.

 

I was lucky in that a new project with new stock coincided with the upsurge in DCC in the early 2000s. It made total sense to go DCC then, if only for the permanent lights. However, I have not converted my kit built shunted fleet built for the previous layout.

Edited August 15, 2018 by newbryford

[Clive Mortimore]

If I was to build a layout post 1985ish to today then DCC would be a must. Lights, very prominent on both front and rear of trains so DCC works well and DC doesn't. 

 

As an operating system I find very little difference. I cannot slow trains down to stop at stations or shunt with the Lenz up and down button system, Andi Dell use to bring along a controller with a twiddly thing for me. 

 

I still find "I want that one to move", section switch, points set, twist the knob and off it goes works better for me than "What is that number, I can't see it from here." " OK it is 1234". Tap in number, set route and direction of travel, check right lights are on, listen to start up procedure, sound horn and then wait for the acceleration to kick in.

 

Luddite, yes. Much of what is said about DCC can be done with DC and a little thought. Skin flint, yes. With over 300 locos I had when I had Hanging Hill would have cost more than my present layout to convert to DCC. I know which is more important to me.

 

Luckily I model a time when the illumination of our trains was not done by the 93rd Searchlight Regiment Royal Artillery. I am not bothered by sound, so these features are not relevant to me.

 

DCC has its place but not on my layout.

 

I can see a future where someone writes a series of articles of how to hard wire the pick ups to the motor thus removing the DCC PCB.

[Vecchio]

Clive,

 

"I still find "I want that one to move", section switch, points set, twist the knob and off it goes works better for me than "What is that number, I can't see it from here." " OK it is 1234". Tap in number, set route and direction of travel, check right lights are on, listen to start up procedure, sound horn and then wait for the acceleration to kick in."

 

No numbers any more. on a modern system you have a picture of the loco (the number is still there, but you will select the picture I suppose except you have 4 similar looking pannier tanks or so). Same for function keys. No numbers but graphic symbols. For instance full headlights, dimmed headlights, shunting lights, cab light, pantograph up, coupling open, and so on.

(modern system is for me for instance Roco Z21)

 

I know I cannot convince you but may be others are reading this ...

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive,

 

"I still find "I want that one to move", section switch, points set, twist the knob and off it goes works better for me than "What is that number, I can't see it from here." " OK it is 1234". Tap in number, set route and direction of travel, check right lights are on, listen to start up procedure, sound horn and then wait for the acceleration to kick in."

 

No numbers any more. on a modern system you have a picture of the loco (the number is still there, but you will select the picture I suppose except you have 4 similar looking pannier tanks or so). Same for function keys. No numbers but graphic symbols. For instance full headlights, dimmed headlights, shunting lights, cab light, pantograph up, coupling open, and so on.

(modern system is for me for instance Roco Z21)

 

I know I cannot convince you but may be others are reading this ...

Hi

 

I have 31 Brush type 2s, except for D5578 and D5579 they are all in the same livery.

[Pete the Elaner]

It seems the "2 wires" thing was taken out of context.

You can run a layout on a 2-wire bus, so instead of having to solder up endless multi-plugs, you only have to take 2 wires across each board join, but these can & should be more substantial than a pair of droppers.

I use a dropper from every piece of rail & I have seen it mentioned that 2 droppers to each rail. I agree that this is a good idea.

Then there is the argument of accessories. Although you CAN use the same bus, it is not recommended. A short is often caused by sending a loco towards a point which is not set correctly.

Although this is poor operating, I am sure we've all done it. Once you have a short, DCC will shut the circuit down so you can't correct the error.

By separating track & power buses then protecting each one, a short on the track leaves the accessory bus live to throw the point & clear the fault.

 

There will always be a place for DC. Even though my home layout is DCC, I still enjoy making a DC layout work.

[Pete the Elaner]

Hi

 

I have 31 Brush type 2s, except for D5578 and D5579 they are all in the same livery.

I am sure I know someone who can beat that....we would end up leaving him in the hotel while we go for a chinese!

[Ravenser]

Clive,

 

"I still find "I want that one to move", section switch, points set, twist the knob and off it goes works better for me than "What is that number, I can't see it from here." " OK it is 1234". Tap in number, set route and direction of travel, check right lights are on, listen to start up procedure, sound horn and then wait for the acceleration to kick in."

 

No numbers any more. on a modern system you have a picture of the loco (the number is still there, but you will select the picture I suppose except you have 4 similar looking pannier tanks or so). Same for function keys. No numbers but graphic symbols. For instance full headlights, dimmed headlights, shunting lights, cab light, pantograph up, coupling open, and so on.

(modern system is for me for instance Roco Z21)

 

I know I cannot convince you but may be others are reading this ...

 

That is a complete disaster on an exhibition layout where several people are supplying the stock.

 

Having seen /attempted to use a Roco Multimaus under those conditions - forget it. You'll find the same loco is in the stack 3 times under different short-names (it'll take you 10 minutes to discover this) , half the stock isn't in the stack and can't be easily added so you can't run it...  Hours of frustration and inconvenience for all!

 

Shortnames instead of addresses are a  bad idea on anything other than a permanent home layout running one person's stock.

 

And traction in squadron service is the norm on the real thing. I have 2 x class 31s in traffic and bits for at least 3 more, 3 x 153s , etc.... 

[Vecchio]

That is a complete disaster on an exhibition layout where several people are supplying the stock.

 

Having seen /attempted to use a Roco Multimaus under those conditions - forget it. You'll find the same loco is in the stack 3 times under different short-names (it'll take you 10 minutes to discover this) , half the stock isn't in the stack and can't be easily added so you can't run it...  Hours of frustration and inconvenience for all!

 

Shortnames instead of addresses are a  bad idea on anything other than a permanent home layout running one person's stock.

 

And traction in squadron service is the norm on the real thing. I have 2 x class 31s in traffic and bits for at least 3 more, 3 x 153s , etc.... 

 

Please forget multimouse and other wired controllers on the z21 or Z21. The full potential is only there if a tablet or smart phone is used. One person has to take the lead on the database and then copy it to the other operators. There is no possibility to have the same loco 3 times in the database. And if you have a new operator you can pass him the database within 5 seconds on his device. He than has exactly the same as all the others on his tablet or phone. Brilliant system especially for use in clubs or at exhibitions.

[Ravenser]

Please forget multimouse and other wired controllers on the z21 or Z21. The full potential is only there if a tablet or smart phone is used. One person has to take the lead on the database and then copy it to the other operators. There is no possibility to have the same loco 3 times in the database. And if you have a new operator you can pass him the database within 5 seconds on his device. He than has exactly the same as all the others on his tablet or phone. Brilliant system especially for use in clubs or at exhibitions.

The issue is database maintenance , and accuracy - and the practical reality of stock turning up at an exhibition.

 

Live databases of any kind are rarely 100% accurate , and if you can't add a loco to the database easily (a real problem with the Multimaus) you're still stuffed ..

 

I'm afraid I'm bleakly realistic about the human organisational limitations , which are what start to become critical here.

 

1. You have to enforce rigid discipline that only 1 person is allowed to enter a loco. That kind of rigid discipline is unlikely in a volunteer environment of a club at a show. People will start entering locos into their own database if they can. You will have the sort of versions/ local update issues that anyone is familiar with who has ever had to sync files...

 

2. You create a "gatekeeper" /key man problem. What happens when Fred, the designated Keeper of the Database , goes to lunch ? Or Fred is only available on the Saturday of a 2 day show?  Or Fred can't make that weekend , meaning we have to pull out of the show because we have no Database Keeper. "We can't run that train - it's not in the database and Fred's just gone to the loo" . The layout stops. 

 

3. If you have more than one trained Keeper - see point 1. I don't see how you can expect 1 operator to be continuously on shift for the whole of a 2 day show

 

4. I am absolutely certain it will be possible for the same loco to be entered twice , on different occasions, by different people , under different short-names

 

I've seen these issues (and others) manifest themselves with a "glass-panel" that only one person understood, and nobody else got the significant training required  to be able to use (Even the organisation of such training is largely impractical in a club environment)

 

Whether there's a wire coming out of the handset or not is irrelevant. To make it work you'd need the group to operate "by the book" with formal procedures like major operational layouts of the past such as Sherwood Section or Crewchester. That is NOT practical in a modern club environment . These are human organisational issues , there's no technical fix .  It's difficult enough to get operators to stick to any kind of rota, never mind tighter disciplines

 

I've had a little more experience in this area than some people, though thankfully my days as "Joint Cat-herd" ended some years ago. 

[Junctionmad]

If I was to build a layout post 1985ish to today then DCC would be a must. Lights, very prominent on both front and rear of trains so DCC works well and DC doesn't. 

 

As an operating system I find very little difference. I cannot slow trains down to stop at stations or shunt with the Lenz up and down button system, Andi Dell use to bring along a controller with a twiddly thing for me. 

 

I still find "I want that one to move", section switch, points set, twist the knob and off it goes works better for me than "What is that number, I can't see it from here." " OK it is 1234". Tap in number, set route and direction of travel, check right lights are on, listen to start up procedure, sound horn and then wait for the acceleration to kick in.

 

Luddite, yes. Much of what is said about DCC can be done with DC and a little thought. Skin flint, yes. With over 300 locos I had when I had Hanging Hill would have cost more than my present layout to convert to DCC. I know which is more important to me.

 

Luckily I model a time when the illumination of our trains was not done by the 93rd Searchlight Regiment Royal Artillery. I am not bothered by sound, so these features are not relevant to me.

 

DCC has its place but not on my layout.

 

I can see a future where someone writes a series of articles of how to hard wire the pick ups to the motor thus removing the DCC PCB.

“ Much that is said about DCC can be done with DC and a little thought “

 

Now you’re having a laugh , try comprehensive sound with DC , try track occupancy , multi locos per section , etc. even with absolutoe shed loads of wiring DC struggles

 

Equally it’s important not to mix up DCC control of locos ( good) and DCC control of the whole layout( not good ) we use a separate layout control bus ( Merg CBUS ) to control our layout , we have a standard 55levef lever frame controlling points and signals , yet we have only 6 wires crossing each baseboard ( 22 baseboards ) , there are 2 wires for CBUS , 12+ and GND , and 2 wire DCC bus

 

To wire this layout to the same level of operational complexity , would require dozens of section switches , and 1000s of meters of additional cabling , it’s would be a Tower of Babel. , instead of 55 wires leaving our control panel from our lever frame , we have just 2

 

This is not a DCC solution , but it shows the advantage of applying computer based solutions to model railways of which DCC is just one area.

 

In our case we have a very conventional control panel , press a switch to sel3ct a loco , use the lever frame to set up the road and then turn the knob

[WIMorrison]

...

 

Equally it’s important not to mix up DCC control of locos ( good) and DCC control of the whole layout( not good ) …

 

 

Why is it 'not good' to have DCC control of the whole layout?

 

That is exactly what DCC provides namely Digital Command and Control which is equally as effective controlling locos as it is at controlling accessories whether those accessories be a turnout motor, a signal, or simply an LED inside a building.

 

You may have chosen to use a separate bus for each function, but In reality all you have done is create 2 DCC busses which most of us achieve by using a power breaker to facilities a track bus and an accessory bus. in truth you have created an additional layer of complexity which isn't required.

[Clive Mortimore]

“ Much that is said about DCC can be done with DC and a little thought “

 

Now you’re having a laugh , try comprehensive sound with DC , try track occupancy , multi locos per section , etc. even with absolutoe shed loads of wiring DC struggles

 

Equally it’s important not to mix up DCC control of locos ( good) and DCC control of the whole layout( not good ) we use a separate layout control bus ( Merg CBUS ) to control our layout , we have a standard 55levef lever frame controlling points and signals , yet we have only 6 wires crossing each baseboard ( 22 baseboards ) , there are 2 wires for CBUS , 12+ and GND , and 2 wire DCC bus

 

To wire this layout to the same level of operational complexity , would require dozens of section switches , and 1000s of meters of additional cabling , it’s would be a Tower of Babel. , instead of 55 wires leaving our control panel from our lever frame , we have just 2

 

This is not a DCC solution , but it shows the advantage of applying computer based solutions to model railways of which DCC is just one area.

 

In our case we have a very conventional control panel , press a switch to sel3ct a loco , use the lever frame to set up the road and then turn the knob

If you were to read my post I have achieved multiple track occupancy, see any of my depot layouts, with DC before DCC. The beauty of my system is I can run over 300 different locos without spending thousands of pounds doing so. But I seem to beginning to understand that there are people who enjoy spending a lot of money to prove how technically sophisticated they are in being able to run a toy train backwards and forwards. Good on them.

 

Sound.....I will say again I am tone deaf so a diesel sounds like a diesel and is wasted on me.

 

Odd you need a conventional control panel, an earlier post I was told that with DCC you don't need one.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[Talltim]

I still find "I want that one to move", section switch, points set, twist the knob and off it goes works better for me than "What is that number, I can't see it from here." " OK it is 1234". Tap in number, set route and direction of travel, check right lights are on, listen to start up procedure, sound horn and then wait for the acceleration to kick in.

 

Ignoring the control method for a moment, think about what a real driver does when starting a shift. They are allocated a specific loco, they check it over and start it up. It takes time to accelerate.

[WIMorrison]

If you were to read my post I have achieved multiple track occupancy, see any of my depot layouts, with DC before DCC. The beauty of my system is I can run over 300 different locos without spending thousands of pounds doing so. But I seem to beginning to understand that there are people who enjoy spending a lot of money to prove how technically sophisticated they are in being able to run a toy train backwards and forwards. Good on them.

 

Sound.....I will say again I am tone deaf so a diesel sounds like a diesel and is wasted on me.

 

Odd you need a conventional control panel, an earlier post I was told that with DCC you don't need one.

I don’t think I would count the £400 that I spent on my command station as being thousands of pounds. It is perfectly capable of running a large stable of locos and at the same time it will provide the running and control of the accessories on the layout.

 

Exaggerated, incorrect claims with needless insults don’t help your case nor do they add to the discussion.

[Pete the Elaner]

I don’t think I would count the £400 that I spent on my command station as being thousands of pounds. It is perfectly capable of running a large stable of locos and at the same time it will provide the running and control of the accessories on the layout.

 

Clive had stated he has around 300 locos. Decoders for that lot would cost around £5000.

I know the reality is that you end up chipping a few locos to start with...then a few more...then a few more, so you won't buy the lot at once, but if you have a large layout in mind (which Clive does because I have seen his layout thread) then you do need to buy a significant number of chips then spend time fitting them when you make the switch to DCC.

 

Anyway, wasn't this thread about wiring & the myth that DCC only needed 2?

Even after seeing the underside of my layout with its 3 power sub-districts & many droppers for each piece of rail, one of my DC modelling friends still believes that all DCC layouts only need 1 set of feeds because of its early marketing...or is he just trying to wind me up? 

[WIMorrison]

I agree with your point and I suggest that it highlights the real resistance to DCC by the people with DC layouts.

 

I have already said, several times, that DC and DCC have their place and I acknowledge the entry barrier to people that have invested significant time and effort in creating complex DC layouts will prevent them adopting DCC, not to mention the skills gap that exists which will need bridging, indeed this is why many clubs remain with DC and perhaps admitting the reality of the barrier is probably a better course of action, than placing one's head in a bucket.

[Mike Buckner]

The problem I see with the whole DC vs DCC argument is that DC users fail to accept it's the future, while DCC users will come across as bigoted by trying to convince DC users of the advantages. This then wades into DC users suggesting they can "do the same".

 

While being fairly new to the hobby, I've never read that DCC would be two wires only. I get the feeling that someone said it once, yet nobody now can really remember. This isn't PPI or mis-sold this or that, that a certain generation feel they have been coerced into getting an interest only mortgage they couldn't afford.

 

Like it or not, I can't think of any new locos that aren't DCC ready these days. 20 years ago, not many were. That alone is a clear indicator of where the hobby is going.

 

Just as Dixons stopped selling VCR players and Dyson no longer manufacture corded vacuum cleaners, you can be a little ignorant to the future or swallow your pride and accept that one day, a locomotive you want simply won't have a DC option.

It'll only take one manufacturer to do take that step for them all to start.

 

Sorry I seem a little callus in certain views. It's just what I see.

 

I suspect DC locos will be available for a very long time. Hornby did once suggest all their locos would be DCC fitted. They were soon shouted down. I want to choose my own preference of decoder, so would always vote for a socket rather than decoders soldered-in to the PCB. I rather suspect that DC will outlast DCC, as it has outlasted Zero-One. DCC will be killed by the next, better, newer-technology set of electronics that overcomes the present-day compromises of DCC - possibly radio/battery based.

[Andymsa]

Let's put this one to bed, as the saying goes agree to disagree. Let's just enjoy our DC/DCC/battery layouts, and derive the pleasure they give us.

 

Andy

[Junctionmad]

I suspect DC locos will be available for a very long time. Hornby did once suggest all their locos would be DCC fitted. They were soon shouted down. I want to choose my own preference of decoder, so would always vote for a socket rather than decoders soldered-in to the PCB. I rather suspect that DC will outlast DCC, as it has outlasted Zero-One. DCC will be killed by the next, better, newer-technology set of electronics that overcomes the present-day compromises of DCC - possibly radio/battery based.

Well all you can say is DCC has proved remarkably resilient and until a “ standards “ body of the statute of the NMRA comes along , all the new technologies are largely incompatible with each other and will remain so. DCC is hardly new at this stage

[Alan Kettlewell]

With the original post in mind "2 wires? - your 'avin a larff" - and not wanting at all to begin a forum war debate on DC versus DCC all over again (lol), I came across this diagramme in my old book Digital Command Control which was produced in 1998 (! wow - so long ago).  

 

Note on the top diagramme 'How to wire the digital layout', it clearly shows only 2 wires to the command control.  It's appropriate to mention though that in the text above is the following sentence: 'This works if a layout is small, but for most layouts additional wiring is necessary'.  

 

I can imagine that such a diagramme, if seen out of context ie without reading the 'small print', could possibly be at least one source of the early notion that  DCC only requires 2 wires.    

 

 

 

Cheers … Alan

Edited September 19, 2018 by Alan Kettlewell

[Junctionmad]

 

 

forum war debate on DC versus DCC

There is no war, rathe like climate change , the " science " is settled , DCC provides significant advantages  over DC , the main advantage DC has is its cheaper,( somewhat )  thats it 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Alan Kettlewell]

There is no war, rathe like climate change , the " science " is settled , DCC provides significant advantages  over DC , the main advantage DC has is its cheaper,( somewhat )  thats it 

 

Probably started a war now ..lol

[Clive Mortimore]

There is no war, rathe like climate change , the " science " is settled , DCC provides significant advantages  over DC , the main advantage DC has is its cheaper,( somewhat )  thats it 

No DCC has more toy like gimmicks that can go wrong. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/178-dcc-help-questions/

 

Compared to http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/63-electrics-non-dcc/

 

 

Science is evidence based. 

 

Non scientific, my DC trains fall off the rails equally as well as DCC trains.

[sp1]

There is no war, rathe like climate change , the " science " is settled , DCC provides significant advantages over DC , the main advantage DC has is its cheaper,( somewhat ) thats it

At the risk of entering a war zone, what do you perceive as ‘significant advantages ‘?