2 wires? - your 'avin a larff.

[sparaxis]

How long is a piece of string? 

(As long as you want it to be)

 

Two wires IS possible. Many European manufacturers have decoders integrated into their point motors etc. So you just join your tracks together and off you go.

 

It is when a layout gets to a certain size that it is no longer an option. 

Way back when I had automated power routing on my DC layout. Throwing the turnouts automatically set up the signals etc. Signals were operated by reed switches and magnets on locos. Needless to say there was a jungle of wires and many many multi pole relays.

 

Now, there is a 2 wire bus to each of the "Switch pilots" on the layout, and 4x3 wires to the 4 solenoids that each controls. Similarly for feedback to drive the signals. WAY LESS WIRES.

[rab]

Now, now. You're just trying to wind us all up!

I suppose next someone will be telling us

the advantage of DCC is that it runs like clockwork.

[newbryford]

I suppose next someone will be telling us

the advantage of DCC is that it runs like clockwork.

 

If you use train control software that runs to time - then yes............

[Junctionmad]

Our club O gauge has consumed 500 m of wire to date , DCC and MERG CBUS busses. We estimate it would have been 4x if we had attempted DC , to the same level of movement freedom ,

 

Other then the cost of loco conversion there is no argument these days for DC.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Junctionmad

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 As soon as you have a loco yard in which three or more locos have to be parked (preferably as economically as possible in use of track space) the DCC two wires claim is justified in my opinion. My last conventional DC sectioned and cab control layout had forty isolating switches for the loco yard, and I was always galled by the poor occupancy, because the physical isolating sections are necessarily of fixed length. I still get a kick out of being able to park DCC controlled traction units nose to tail on any length of track.

 

Some of the people I know are still mourning the end of clockwork...

  It is fun when the tractive  power is properly located and independent on the locomotive. (Same applies to steam.) But you still have the problem that any points require a mechanism, and if out of range of convenient physical reach - which is often typical on the scale of layouts to operate clockwork or steam  - 'something has to be done' to provide an actuator for points.

[Reorte]

  It is fun when the tractive  power is properly located and independent on the locomotive. (Same applies to steam.) But you still have the problem that any points require a mechanism, and if out of range of convenient physical reach - which is often typical on the scale of layouts to operate clockwork or steam  - 'something has to be done' to provide an actuator for points.

Scale point rodding, no wires involved there!

[Talltim]

Scale point rodding, no wires involved there!

What about the signals?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On most of the garden layouts I have operated, waves of the hand were all the signalling equipment. Back to the dawn of the real railway...

[Pandora]

To achieve the same level of control offered by  a DCC layout with 2, 3 or more in number of l locomotives  on track  a DC layout would require  considerable number of wires, isolation switches and insulated rail joiners. I tend to support the "two wires only " claims

Edited August 3, 2018 by Pandora

[Pete the Elaner]

Scale point rodding, no wires involved there!

Across a board join? 

[PaulRhB]

I've had a few layouts on the exhibition circuit and I'm slowly moving over to DCC for new ones although one remains switchable to DC.

The main reason isn't wiring simplicity, as many will point out it doesn't really save much, but operator fatigue. By the end of 6 or 8 hour day people are getting tired and more mistakes happen running into the wrong line, forgetting to switch the section over or on etc.

All I've found is that the DCC 'all on' makes it simpler to teach people who've never seen the layout before to operate it as they only need to select the points, not the power too. They feel more at ease straight away and are less tired trying to remember all the switches to throw. So with the last two layouts I've found it easier to find operators and get them up to speed fast and they are less likely to make the little errors as there is less to do. They get on with driving and signalling without adding power management to it

I still operate friends layouts with multi cab control and enjoy it a lot but am genuinely more tired at the end of the day.

So there's a new spin on it

[WIMorrison]

And when you do go to DCC then you can add a computer to run it at the exhibitions then you won't need to train operators and you can have an easy time chatting to the visitoirs rayther than concentrating on operating the layout

[PaulRhB]

But it's the operating bit I enjoy We tried full automation with this layout built by a mate and after 1 day we were bored so went back to driving the trains on the second day!

 

2009-04-18 Wimborne Show 023 by -salisburyASC-

[WIMorrison]

What I ike doing is letting the computer run several locos and i then run one manually - the layout then has action happening and yet I can 'ply' to my hearts content knowing that I cannot crash into anything (or have it crash into me) as the computer will ensure that this doesn't happen. Best of both worlds?

[Pacific231G]

So what about no wires i.e. RC with autonomous (battery powered) locos?  I saw an interesting demo of this by Frank Allen at the Oxfordshire NG open day in June and it was intriguing. Driving a short wheelbase 009 0-4-0 at a crawl over pointwork was an experience I can't remember ever having had before even on the best laid track and the control system, based on cheap off the shelf components  could handle up to ten locos. Frank had  a series of articles on this in 009 News which unfortunately I'd completely ignored but I gather that this is a case of borrowing technology from other branches of modelling and taking advantage of advances in things like battery technology.

[Reorte]

What about the signals?

Don't think I've seen anyone attempt scale signal wires at 4mm, and in any case that's wires even if they're not electrical. I suppose internal wires don't count (otherwise all the ones in the locos would). Radio controlled perhaps? Would probably be easier with colour lights. Or if you're doing modern image you could go for very modern and say it's cab signalling (although that probably wouldn't go with the working point rodding). This is getting silly...

 

 

Across a board join? 

Hopefully "challenge accepted!" By someone anyway, I'm certainly not going to try it!

Edited August 3, 2018 by Reorte

[Reorte]

Across a board join?

What I ike doing is letting the computer run several locos and i then run one manually - the layout then has action happening and yet I can 'ply' to my hearts content knowing that I cannot crash into anything (or have it crash into me) as the computer will ensure that this doesn't happen. Best of both worlds?

If I had a large and complex enough layout it might be fun to automate enough so that I'm just driving a train but having to respond to the signals, or vice-versa, but I'd prefer it even more if it was all done by people.

 

Straying off-topic though it reminds me a bit of an idea I had a while back for linking several layouts via the internet, so you could at least pretend a train passes from one to the other. It would require everyone involved having more or less the same stock though, and shunting would mess things up a bit.

[davetheroad]

So what about no wires i.e. RC with autonomous (battery powered) locos?  I saw an interesting demo of this by Frank Allen at the Oxfordshire NG open day in June and it was intriguing. Driving a short wheelbase 009 0-4-0 at a crawl over pointwork was an experience I can't remember ever having had before even on the best laid track and the control system, based on cheap off the shelf components  could handle up to ten locos. Frank had  a series of articles on this in 009 News which unfortunately I'd completely ignored but I gather that this is a case of borrowing technology from other branches of modelling and taking advantage of advances in things like battery technology.

 

You can't get less wiring than no wiring! Of course you still have to have some type of point control which may or may not have wiring. Existing battery technology is good enough for my 3 hour operating sessions.

[WIMorrison]

But it's the operating bit I enjoy We tried full automation with this layout built by a mate and after 1 day we were bored so went back to driving the trains on the second day!

 

….

 

 

I think I would agree with you on that one - some layouts don't work with automation and I suggest that would be one, although a good layout out demo automated control, but boring for operators who would simply drink tea and coffee all day..

 

Your RhB layout would be different I think as you could operate one end and let the computer take the trains to the other end and back again - but like al these aspects what works for one person won't always work for another, I find trying to remember the point numbers awkward but that is solved by the Z21 app, as can be routing. I guess I am just lazy and think if I have gone that far why not the next step and square the circle

[Pacific231G]

You can't get less wiring than no wiring! Of course you still have to have some type of point control which may or may not have wiring. Existing battery technology is good enough for my 3 hour operating sessions.

If you saw the usual state of my "explosion in a spaghetti factory" wiring even when I've tried really hard to keep it neat and tidy,  you'd understand exactly why the idea of not having to do any wiring at all seemed so attractive.  At least my wiring generally works and the likely catch with r/c and battery power would be that my attempts to rewire locos for it would probably render them useless.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Pandora]

So what about no wires i.e. RC with autonomous (battery powered) locos?  I saw an interesting demo of this by Frank Allen at the Oxfordshire NG open day in June and it was intriguing. Driving a short wheelbase 009 0-4-0 at a crawl over pointwork was an experience I can't remember ever having had before even on the best laid track and the control system, based on cheap off the shelf components  could handle up to ten locos. Frank had  a series of articles on this in 009 News which unfortunately I'd completely ignored but I gather that this is a case of borrowing technology from other branches of modelling and taking advantage of advances in things like battery technology.

I agree with your observation,   the advances in capacity/size/cost of rechargeable  batteries  make self powered stock feasible,  internal battery power is compatible with DCC,  requiring a Wifi method of transmission of control signals  as opposed to using the rails.

[br2975]

"Two wires" is / was a phallacy, no doubt dreamt up by the manufacturers.

.

This is compounded (IMHO) by those modelling 'names' who, in monthly articles, espouse the latest digital gadget, one that will perform things you had never previously imagined necessary.

.

And, guess what, they are only £80 each, and you'll only need 5 or 6 for your layout.

( That's £80 each, on top of your Powercab or Prodigy, Cobalt motors, sound chips etc etc )

.

And, have you noticed, that the modelling 'name' behind the article makes you feel inferior as a modeller if you don't buy and fit these ?

.

And, what's more, that modelling 'name' obtains all the items featured from the same company ?

.

Some, suspicious folk, may suspect 'product placement' has crept into railway modelling.

.

I leave you to decide.

Edited August 7, 2018 by br2975

[davetheroad]

I agree with your observation,   the advances in capacity/size/cost of rechargeable  batteries  make self powered stock feasible,  internal battery power is compatible with DCC,  requiring a Wifi method of transmission of control signals  as opposed to using the rails.

 

I think the future lies in a control system that uses radio to send/receive the data and can seamlessly auto switch between track and battery power. It will have an excellent visual interface for making those fiddly fine tuning adjustments etc. Just think, no more frog juicing, complex pointwork 'dead' etc etc. Users will be able to go all rail power, mixed or all battery.

 

Can it be done?

 

Yes - BlueRail Trains first board did just that. Using an Apple/Android App to control the trains. For me there were two problems, first the board was too large and I prefer a tactile throttle to a touch screen. Their next board is even more advanced and much smaller plus apparently I can pair a tactile throttle with the smart device.

They have no original boards left and have paired up with a third party, to provide the finance? The next announcement should be this summer but it has been over a year since the last news

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I think the future lies in a control system that uses radio to send/receive the data and can seamlessly auto switch between track and battery power...

That would be an excellent future. Conceptually simple enough, but to win general market acceptance it needs a lead manufacturer or a hobby body to develop a proven system, define and package it -  preferably as an open standard - and get major model manufacturers on board.

[Butler Henderson]

RC is still IMO a good way from being a simple realistic option. Heres my Heljan 26 radio control chassis for tunnel track cleaning purposes.

 

With no body I simply plonked the rc bits on top in lieu of the pcb. From left to right there is:-

- a 500mAh 3.7v battery

- a (blue) pcb that boosts the voltage to 12v

- a (beige) auto reset fuse

- a (green) pcb that hosts the rc receiver and motor control circuit and (invisible) dangling off its right end the aerial wire

 

Now to get that lot fitted and a body put on would require a complete strip down of the loco in order that one or maybe both pcbs, and possibly the fuse, fit in the battery boxes / fuel tank. The battery and whatever cannot fit in the battery boxes / fuel tank will have to fit above the motor, with the Heljan pcb removed and the lighting rewired if still required. There is also the need to consider how to charge the battery, I simply pull the red plug/socket apart and connect the charger.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Butler Henderson