Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

And a lot of Powercab people add a PSX powershield (or several) between the cab and the layout, to add additional protection,

 

Agreed, but a lot don't due to the additional expense and the logic that, "well the system works well enough without it".

 

For my own use, on powercab systems, for each section I use the considerably cheaper Polyfuse used in conjunction with a diode and a LED to substitute for the once fashionable 21 watt brake light bulb.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Roger Sunderland said:

Perhaps a slightly one sided view Graham. I have converted many DC layouts to DCC simply by switching everything on although the more complex a layout is and it’s wiring in DC the harder it is. Why is having a permanently live track a gimmick or unnecessary?

As others have said, if the DCC layout has been wired correctly the whole system does not shut down after a short.

Finally, why would you want to run an un- chipped loco on a DCC layout. It won’t run well and rather defeats the object ie beautifully smooth control.

 

3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

As Mike has said, momentary shorts don’t need to shut the whole system down - they don’t on Gresley Jn. And even if they do, sound fitted locos with stayalive (which IMHO is essential for sound) will not shut down /go through their start up cycle.

 

However, I do agree with you about the problems of putting DC locos on DCC layouts. I think they’re best not mixed. I can switch my main circuits over to DC for guests or running in, but that means removing all my DCC fitted locos on the relevant section/ circuit. I do this on occasion but it is a fag.

 

1. It is the synthetic sound system that is an un-necessary gimmick, not the permanently live dead-end sidings.

2. If you are a sociable sort, rather than the very opposite, it is more than conceivable that you might want others with shared modelling interests (in respect of periods, locations and companies, rather than a pure shared interest in digital gadgetry) to visit and bring guest stock onto the layout. You're shutting some of them out if you've created a layout that will only accept chipped locos.

3. Fine control is perfectly possible without DCC, which is not therefore a pre-requisite of refined running.

4. Special wiring arrangements and extra gadgets, altered gaps in track or different types of proprietary pointwork, protected power districts on the layout, and stay-alive gadgets in locos may well overcome the problem of instant death every time there's the slightest twitch of a short, but such things are a long way from simply connecting up two wires from a basic DCC control system and turning on all track sections on any old workable DC layout. They rather demonstrate that if you spend a lot more money buying additional gadgets to compensate for the shortcomings in the expensive gadgets that you didn't need in the first place, then a tolerable result can be obtained.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

That's a misleading statement. It's the same as a DC controlled layout and depends on how many electrical block sections the layout is divided into. On a DCC layout a short should only shut down the section it occurs in.

Your misconception is probably fuelled by the popularity of the entry level NCE powercab system and the way it operates under short circuit conditions. Most DCC layouts that I've seen using the powercab (as opposed to the pro cab) are wired as one single section. So when a short occurs the handset shuts down and power is removed from all of the track until the short is found and removed.

If you think about it, that is the safe way to operate.

 

P

Is it misleading?

 

I can only speak from my own experience, and can cite one example. One day, I brought home one of Gilbert Barnatt's locos, an A2/2. It kept on shorting out on his Peterborough North, knocking out the DCC. I investigated here at home. I took out the decoder and tested the loco on Little Bytham. No apparent short, and perfect running. However, on running it under dark conditions, I detected the slightest spark between the rear bogie wheels and the frames on certain sections of track. Not enough to to even make the loco twitch on DC, but, obviously enough to knock out the DCC on PN. I fitted bogie wheels with finer flanges, reinstated the chip, handed it back to Gilbert and it's performed perfectly ever since. 

 

Why can something like that be construed as 'misleading'? It's clear, empirical evidence. 

 

And, I don't think layouts wired as 'one single section' are a good idea (are you suggesting that? I'm not sure of your point). Little Bytham is DC, and always will be for me - however, it's been used in DCC mode on several occasions by Bachmann first hand, and also for testing other manufacturers' DCC-fitted locos. I wonder how many DCC layouts can be converted to DC by the simple expedient of just switching two wires? 'Good' wiring practice dictates that each of the four main circuits is divided into four sections each, and each siding/headshunt area in the station environs is also separately-divided. Thus, if a short does occur which isn't immediately apparent, I merely throw all the switches to 'off', and then switch each one 'on' again in turn until the short reappears. I then know immediately, as Mike Edge does, where the short is present, and I can then fix it.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

All this will pass when we get battery powered RC (or otherwise controlled) locos that don't rely on the track for power at all as a consumer rather than an experimental product.  I still remember my astonishment at seeing a short wheelbase 009 0-4-0 crawling very very slowly over some not particularlly well laid points without so much as a stutter. Probably not in my modelling lifetime but the thought of no wiring at all, no more worrying about frog switching, far less need for track cleaning is awfully seductive. It's perhaps little wonder that so many of our most illustrious 0 (and even 00) forebears like Jack Ray with Crewchester stuck with well controlled clockwork for so long.

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, queensquare said:

I'd have to agree with both Mike and Frank. Pretty much all my locos are split chassis so have live frames and I've never found it to be an issue fitting DCC chips and, as a 2mm modeller with a penchant for small tank locos, the notion that room cant be found in a large 4mm loco to put a chip is laughable.

 

In addition, citing poorly wired DCC layouts that don't work very  well to make a case simply doesn't wash. As any trained historian will tell you the particular does not prove the general. If it did then ordinary  DC  would have been written off years ago judging by the number of poorly wired, unreliable DC layouts I've seen.

 

Sandra is absolutely right when she says that a layout of the complexity of Retford would be much better off wired for DCC, the big problem is the mammoth task of retro fitting 100 plus locos.

 

As for the nonsense that wiring a layout for DCC is somehow antisocial because it precludes visiting DC locos. Do those who advance this one sided argument make their layouts DCC compatible so that visiting, chipped locos can run. I suspect not.

 

Jerry  

Good afternoon Jerry,

 

I trust you and Kim are well. My regards to her.

 

'the notion that room cant be found in a large 4mm loco to put a chip is laughable.'

 

But, not all 4mm locos are large...............

 

When you next visit, I'll hand over a London Road J6 for you to examine. It's an etched brass kit and every conceivable bit of space inside the body and frames, not needed for the drive, is packed with lead. Granted, had I built it with DCC in mind, I'd have left space for a decoder (at the expense of reducing its tractive effort), but retro-fitting already-made locos for DCC, as you've suggested, is a tricky problem.

 

I concede that what you 2mm chaps (and chapettes) do with DCC is just mind-blowing - that revering valve gear on Nick's 9F. I've never seen that in any scale/gauge before. 

 

'Do those who advance this one sided argument make their layouts DCC compatible so that visiting, chipped locos can run. I suspect not.'

 

I do, as I've explained in my last post. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Is it misleading?

 

I can only speak from my own experience, and can cite one example. One day, I brought home one of Gilbert Barnatt's locos, an A2/2. It kept on shorting out on his Peterborough North, knocking out the DCC. I investigated here at home. I took out the decoder and tested the loco on Little Bytham. No apparent short, and perfect running. However, on running it under dark conditions, I detected the slightest spark between the rear bogie wheels and the frames on certain sections of track. Not enough to to even make the loco twitch on DC, but, obviously enough to knock out the DCC on PN. I fitted bogie wheels with finer flanges, reinstated the chip, handed it back to Gilbert and it's performed perfectly ever since. 

 

Why can something like that be construed as 'misleading'? It's clear, empirical evidence. 

 

And, I don't think layouts wired as 'one single section' are a good idea (are you suggesting that? I'm not sure of your point). Little Bytham is DC, and always will be for me - however, it's been used in DCC mode on several occasions by Bachmann first hand, and also for testing other manufacturers' DCC-fitted locos. I wonder how many DCC layouts can be converted to DC by the simple expedient of just switching two wires? 'Good' wiring practice dictates that each of the four main circuits is divided into four sections each, and each siding/headshunt area in the station environs is also separately-divided. Thus, if a short does occur which isn't immediately apparent, I merely throw all the switches to 'off', and then switch each one 'on' again in turn until the short reappears. I then know immediately, as Mike Edge does, where the short is present, and I can then fix it.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

 

An interesting example, Tony.  Another way of looking at it, is that DCC highlighted a pre-existing construction problem in the locomotive that DC hadn't identified.  

 

If the locomotive is regularly shorting out, even without apparently affecting it's running, it is something that I would want to get fixed.  DCC helped you to do that!

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is clear that DC controllers have more robust electronic components that can handle small short circuits better than their DCC counterparts. Hence the reason for protection on DCC controllers to ensure the more fragile components are not damaged. 

 

In my opinion, the whole 'DC vs DCC' debate is just the same as the 'RTR vs Kit' one.

 

People choose the method of operation they prefer. You'll never convince those with polarised opinions either way to change those opinions. Everyone should choose the method of operation they are most comfortable with. As long as their layout operates reliably then nobody has a right to say they have chosen incorrectly. 

 

 

 

  • Like 8
  • Agree 7
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,

 

My Andover Junction layout is DCC and I must say I prefer DCC from the operational point of view. After operating a DCC layout an analogue layout does seem rather restrictive. It is also easier to wire a DCC layout for whilst sections are desirable for fault finding you do not need so many of them and in normal operation they are not used.

 

It is possible to put a decoder in a locomotive with a live chassis but it is difficult and any stray shorts have to be ruthlessly eliminated. On Andover Junction I have three locomotives with live chassis which do run OK. Andover Junction is EM gauge which probably makes it more difficult to make the live chassis/decoder combination work. I think the secret is not having curves which are too sharp. Andover Junction has curves of a minimum radius of 3’ 6”. I don’t think the size of the decoders is as much a problem as it was as you can buy some exceedingly small decoders which seem to work satisfactorily.

 

I do realise that DCC is certainly prone to its own problems and it’s undoubtedly more susceptible to short circuits. A few days ago I operated Andover Junction and it worked OK. The next time I tried it there was a massive short in the fiddle yard. I couldn’t work out what was causing it. I checked the wiring, the control panel, the rolling stock starting with the most likely suspects first (metal coaches) until I eventually tracked the problem down to a 2251 class 0-6-0. Whilst the loco had been driven into the fiddle yard some time earlier without a problem, somehow whilst standing there the decoder had decided to fail and to fail in such a way that it caused a short circuit. This would not have occurred on a DC layout as any fault with a loco would only become apparent once you tried to use it and not cause the whole system to fail.

 

As I said previously I do not intend to convert Retford to DCC although in my view it would be a better model railway if it had been built as a DCC layout. It was of course largely built before DCC was widely available. I did talk to Roy about it once and he was not totally hostile to DCC but it certainly wasn’t for him.

 

Sandra

  • Like 6
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

An interesting example, Tony.  Another way of looking at it, is that DCC highlighted a pre-existing construction problem in the locomotive that DC hadn't identified.  

 

If the locomotive is regularly shorting out, even without apparently affecting it's running, it is something that I would want to get fixed.  DCC helped you to do that!

It is another way of looking at it Phil,

 

And, had the loco been just used on analogue, the 'problem' would never have been detected; thus, there would not really have been one.

 

The reason why I cited it was to show how much more-sensitive DCC systems would appear to be in contrast to DC systems.

 

I'm sure that on numerous occasions LB's locos have generated a 'small' short (90% of what I make has live chassis), but I never ever notice them.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

II can only speak from my own experience, and can cite one example. One day, I brought home one of Gilbert Barnatt's locos, an A2/2. It kept on shorting out on his Peterborough North, knocking out the DCC. I investigated here at home. I took out the decoder and tested the loco on Little Bytham. No apparent short, and perfect running. However, on running it under dark conditions, I detected the slightest spark between the rear bogie wheels and the frames on certain sections of track. Not enough to to even make the loco twitch on DC, but, obviously enough to knock out the DCC on PN. I fitted bogie wheels with finer flanges, reinstated the chip, handed it back to Gilbert and it's performed perfectly ever since. 

 

 

This shows why I use the EB1 circuit breakers with a programmed delay, minor transient short circuits like this do not knock out the whole system and will not cause any damage to the chips or the control system. Incidentally I find this sort of problem easier to deal with in locos with live frames, I only have to make sure the wheels at one side doesn't touch anything.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The part of the statement I said was misleading was that which I quoted. That  was your re-iteration "that when a short circuit occurs on a DCC system, it has a far greater impact on the running than on DC.

 

That simply is not correct. It depends on how the trackwork is wired and divided into electrical sections irrespective of whether DC or DCC control.

 

So the scenario of the loco you then used as an example:

 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Why can something like that be construed as 'misleading'? It's clear, empirical evidence. 

 

 

Because it was not a DCC problem.  It was a intermittent short circuit problem on the locomotive.

 

DCC systems are more sensitive to poor locomotive  and layout wiring and in this case you were prompted to investigate further.  If running under DC that short circuit arcing would have eventually manifested into a greater problem such as burnt internal wiring or over stressed motor windings.

 

The DCC system gave you clear, empirical evidence that there was an electrical problem with the loco. 

 

One thing that the extra short circuit sensitivity that DCC offers is  that it will find out if we haven't been  very disciplined with our electrics. I don't think that's a bad thing.

 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

And, I don't think layouts wired as 'one single section' are a good idea (are you suggesting that? I'm not sure of your point).

 

No. I am saying layouts  (dependant on size of layout of course) should be divided into sections. If a short occurs in one section the other sections remain powered.

 

This little circuit incorporated into one leg of the track bus on a powercab DCC system provides short circuit protection and indication for each individual section the bonus being the powercab doesn't shut down under short circuit condition.

 

SCP-DCC-Section.jpg.0b738a9c0b67b1cc359b7160fe00726d.jpg

 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I wonder how many DCC layouts can be converted to DC by the simple expedient of just switching two wires?

 

Most, if that method of operation is taken into account from the start

 

Even if it wasn't initially considered it shouldn't be too difficult to alter wiring to suit but that would depend on how a layout is wired in the first place.

 

This is the Mk1 version of an adaptor box, that enables Pentroller or Gaugemaster handheld controllers that use din plugs to be substituted with a powercab connector. It's up to the Mk iv version at present which is down to about a quarter of the size.

 

CrockBoxMkI-001-EditSM.jpg.d61fafef09733bcd4869c194edc00256.jpg

 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

'Good' wiring practice dictates that each of the four main circuits is divided into four sections each, and each siding/headshunt area in the station environs is also separately-divided. Thus, if a short does occur which isn't immediately apparent, I merely throw all the switches to 'off', and then switch each one 'on' again in turn until the short reappears.

 

That would work equally as well under DCC. If short circuit indication had been wired into each section the illuminated lamp would have indicated which section the short had occured.

 

P

 

Edited to acknowledge Chambys reply above.  I've been cutting the lawns* in the mean time

* For lawns read bio diversity areas AKA dandelions & daisies.

Edited by Porcy Mane
To acknowledge Chambys reply above.
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

But, not all 4mm locos are large...............

 

Have to agree with Queensquare.

 

This is a chipped Bachmann Wickham trolley. In the five or so years since doing this chips are now available that are half of the size as the one shown here. This installation has a connector so the decoder can be removed and a blanking plug installed to enable DC running.

 

WickhamMdlingBM-013-CombSm.jpg.506ddd9b6fa6d5adce4c89c995baa7ac.jpg

 

No doubt you will have seen this 2mm DCC masterpiece.

 

 

Edited by Porcy Mane
Forgot the 2mm link
  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LNERandBR said:

In my opinion, the whole 'DC vs DCC' debate is just the same as the 'RTR vs Kit' one.

 

People choose the method of operation they prefer. You'll never convince those with polarised opinions either way to change those opinions.

This debate reminds me of my youth; 2CV drivers (or other cheap, small cars) saying what's the point of a car that'll do 140mph, when you can only do 70mph on a motorway.  The people with powerful cars say what's the point of a 2CV when you can only just do the motorway limit.

Each is buying their choice of car for their own purposes.  The fact that it won't do what the other wants is irrelevant to them. 

You might as well ask a cyclist if he'd like to swap for a canoe.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

This debate reminds me of my youth; 2CV drivers (or other cheap, small cars) saying what's the point of a car that'll do 140mph, when you can only do 70mph on a motorway.  The people with powerful cars say what's the point of a 2CV when you can only just do the motorway limit.

Each is buying their choice of car for their own purposes.  The fact that it won't do what the other wants is irrelevant to them. 

You might as well ask a cyclist if he'd like to swap for a canoe.

Probably not relevant, but neither of the 2CVs I've driven could get anywhere near the motorway speed limit, and would only reach the national limit going downhill. :offtopic:

 

John

  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LNERandBR said:

People choose the method of operation they prefer. You'll never convince those with polarised opinions either way to change those opinions.

 

There are also the people that have a foot in both camps and a perfectly happy. They see the advantages and disadvantages of both systems.

 

With the advances in technology the development in battery/radio control  that may take place over the next few years could  prove interesting (How many decades ago was it that Bernard Weller first demonstrated his battery system?)

 

Just my opinion but it's probably the major rtr manufactures that will dictate which electrical control system becomes dominant. I cant think of a current rtr 4mm locomotive  (Apart from entry level junior stuff and Brio) that isn't manufactured without easy DCC capability built in. 

 

I expect tomorrows railway modellers  (the yoof of today) will be demanding the development of the mobile phone control apps via R/C or DCC. After all the mobby phone seems to control every other aspect of their lives.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Porcy Mane said:

The part of the statement I said was misleading was that which I quoted. That  was your re-iteration "that when a short circuit occurs on a DCC system, it has a far greater impact on the running than on DC.

 

That simply is not correct. It depends on how the trackwork is wired and divided into electrical sections irrespective of whether DC or DCC control.

 

So the scenario of the loco you then used as an example:

 

 

 

Because it was not a DCC problem.  It was a intermittent short circuit problem on the locomotive.

 

DCC systems are more sensitive to poor locomotive  and layout wiring and in this case you were prompted to investigate further.  If running under DC that short circuit arcing would have eventually manifested into a greater problem such as burnt internal wiring or over stressed motor windings.

 

The DCC system gave you clear, empirical evidence that there was an electrical problem with the loco. 

 

One thing that the extra short circuit sensitivity that DCC offers is  that it will find out if we haven't been  very disciplined with our electrics. I don't think that's a bad thing.

 

 

No. I am saying layouts  (dependant on size of layout of course) should be divided into sections. If a short occurs in one section the other sections remain powered.

 

This little circuit incorporated into one leg of the track bus on a powercab DCC system provides short circuit protection and indication for each individual section the bonus being the powercab doesn't shut down under short circuit condition.

 

SCP-DCC-Section.jpg.0b738a9c0b67b1cc359b7160fe00726d.jpg

 

 

Most, if that method of operation is taken into account from the start

 

Even if it wasn't initially considered it shouldn't be too difficult to alter wiring to suit but that would depend on how a layout is wired in the first place.

 

This is the Mk1 version of an adaptor box, that enables Pentroller or Gaugemaster handheld controllers that use din plugs to be substituted with a powercab connector. It's up to the Mk iv version at present which is down to about a quarter of the size.

 

CrockBoxMkI-001-EditSM.jpg.d61fafef09733bcd4869c194edc00256.jpg

 

 

That would work equally as well under DCC. If short circuit indication had been wired into each section the illuminated lamp would have indicated which section the short had occured.

 

P

 

Edited to acknowledge Chambys reply above.  I've been cutting the lawns* in the mean time

* For lawns read bio diversity areas AKA dandelions & daisies.

We seem to be going around in circles.

 

I merely observed that a loco (with a slight shorting problem) shut down a DCC system. Yet that same loco, on analogue, worked perfectly (the slight shorting problem not causing any erratic running). 

 

Does that not illustrate that a DCC layout is more prone to be affected by shorts than a DC one? It might not have been a 'DCC problem', but the loco certainly caused it to be one. Perhaps we agree on that. 

 

And, thanks for your clarification. I don't think it's entirely dependent on the size of the layout that it should be wired in sections; sections which can be isolated, irrespective whether it's DCC or DC. 

 

I agree that DCC requires a greater discipline in all aspects of the electrics. Perhaps that's why I stick with DC; it forgives my being sloppy.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

Have to agree with Queensquare.

 

This is a chipped Bachmann Wickham trolley. In the five or so years since doing this chips are now available that are half of the size as the one shown here. This installation has a connector so the decoder can be removed and a blanking plug installed to enable DC running.

 

WickhamMdlingBM-013-CombSm.jpg.506ddd9b6fa6d5adce4c89c995baa7ac.jpg

 

No doubt you will have seen this 2mm DCC masterpiece.

 

 

Yes,

 

I have seen that masterpiece.

 

I've photographed it, and, quite rightly, awarded it a prize at one of the 2mm Association's AGMs where I was privileged to be invited as a judge..

 

It makes anything I build look like the work of a clot in comparison................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

There are also the people that have a foot in both camps and a perfectly happy. They see the advantages and disadvantages of both systems.

 

With the advances in technology the development in battery/radio control  that may take place over the next few years could  prove interesting (How many decades ago was it that Bernard Weller first demonstrated his battery system?)

 

Just my opinion but it's probably the major rtr manufactures that will dictate which electrical control system becomes dominant. I cant think of a current rtr 4mm locomotive  (Apart from entry level junior stuff and Brio) that isn't manufactured without easy DCC capability built in. 

 

I expect tomorrows railway modellers  (the yoof of today) will be demanding the development of the mobile phone control apps via R/C or DCC. After all the mobby phone seems to control every other aspect of their lives.

On the layout I work on, we can drive using mobile phones already, using the Blue Railways DC system. No doubt most of the DCC systems offer similar functionality.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not concerned with which control system people use. I am happy with DC and it works well on my layout.

 

I did let my DCC mates(?) take over Hanging Hill at one exhibition, all section switches on and to the same controller. It was good for me when there was a short as all the sound fitted locos went quiet, but that is personal thing, you either like sound or hate noise. Most the shorts were where people were not adhering to my markers at the points end of the sidings. I had lamps, bright coloured oil drums and figures as markers to prevent locos walloping each other. They were also where the DC sections butted on to each other. Even with DCC if bridged and the point not set for that siding there was a short.

 

Anyhow this is not the purpose of this post, it is the question of "socialising" and taking stock to run on a mate's layout of visa-versa. It is sad that in a few weeks time a couple of my guest will not be bringing their DCC fitted locos to run but it is something we as adults realise and do not see it as a problem.

 

It also reminds me of being invited to a school friend's house to see his dad's model railway. I think it was the first proper model railway I had seen, scenery, tunnels, station, it had the lot, so it seemed. My friend said that it was OK for me to bring my engines. So I duly packed D5572 and City of London for a day of model railway fun. Oh dear his dad's layout was 3 rail. I think my friend was as disappointed as me that my engines did get ago, but what a great day we had. I think his dad did to.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I am not going to join in the DCC vs DC debate. I don't think anybody has anything new to add and it has been covered on this very thread and elsewhere many times before.

 

I will just mention that today is the second anniversary of Roy Jackson leaving us, so I will be thinking of all the often good, sometimes difficult but always entertaining hours spent in his company.

 

We miss you Roy.

 

Tony Gee

 

 

 

 

Is it really two years, Tony?

 

Yes, of course. So much has happened since. 

 

In my 'encounters' with Roy, I'm sure there were far more good times than difficult ones (apart from my first chat with him, where I was told to 'go forth and multiply'!).

 

Yes, much-missed.

 

I, too, will say no more about DCC. I don't know enough about it to really make a sensible comment (so just make clottish ones). I also think I need to improve my written communication skills if I attempt to promulgate further about it. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

We seem to be going around in circles.

 

 I don't think we are. We are having a civil debate and hopefully our exchange will clear up a few DCC misconceptions.

 

26 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I merely observed that a loco (with a slight shorting problem) shut down a DCC system. Yet that same loco, on analogue, worked perfectly (the slight shorting problem not causing any erratic running). 

 

A short cannot be described a "Slight". You have either a short circuit condition or you don't. From what you said It was an intermittent short. The most difficult type of s/c faults to reliably detect. It was a "problem" (your description) that existed which should not have regardless of the control system in use.

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Does that not illustrate that a DCC layout is more prone to be affected by shorts than a DC one? It might not have been a 'DCC problem', but the loco certainly caused it to be one. Perhaps we agree on that. 

 

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the more sensitive DCC system prevented a faulty locomotive running.

I think you would agree that allowing any loco to run with a short circuit under any circumstances and for reasons outlined in my earlier post would be bad practice.

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't think it's entirely dependent on the size of the layout that it should be wired in sections; sections which can be isolated, irrespective whether it's DCC or DC. 

 

Oh I don't know. I think putting power sections into this layout might be a little OTT.  (I have suggested it!).

 

150183762_CDepot-Gland19-007-EditSm.jpg.d7cbbf6bfec9f5b79825d64542c514d7.jpg

  • Like 8
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

 I don't think we are. We are having a civil debate and hopefully our exchange will clear up a few DCC misconceptions.

 

 

A short cannot be described a "Slight". You have either a short circuit condition or you don't. From what you said It was an intermittent short. The most difficult type of s/c faults to reliably detect. It was a "problem" (your description) that existed which should not have regardless of the control system in use.

 

 

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the more sensitive DCC system prevented a faulty locomotive running.

I think you would agree that allowing any loco to run with a short circuit under any circumstances and for reasons outlined in my earlier post would be bad practice.

 

 

Oh I don't know. I think putting power sections into this layout might be a little OTT.  (I have suggested it!).

 

150183762_CDepot-Gland19-007-EditSm.jpg.d7cbbf6bfec9f5b79825d64542c514d7.jpg

Thanks,

 

As I intimated, I'll say no more on the matter.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...