To DCC or not?

[Tallpaul69]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I have an uneasy feeling about this topic. It's generating huge amounts of (heated) discussion about the finer details of a layout that we have no evidence will ever become reality.

 

It doesn't feel right: 12ft by 8ft, with a need for 200 locos and 3 power districts?

 

The reason for 200 locos is that I want to run the layout  in several eras. Originally 1962, 1977, 1992, 2007, and 2016. So that is roughly 40 locos per era. The three power districts are to simplify fault finding (I am told?)

I have not included a track plan because I don't think my initial sketch is good enough to show from the holes contributors picked in an earlier version I shared (although admittedly not on this forum!). I do not yet own the copyright in the track plans  put together by potential builders, so cannot share them!

I tried to ask my question as simply as possible because I know from experience (present company excepted) that people don't read a lot of detail, they switch off after a couple of sentences and then ask why I have not told them things that were there if they read the whole thing!

So it is a fine balance to give enough facts so your question can be answered without half the readers switching off and missing some of the facts!

 

The way things are going  I  will have to sell the locos and stock of a couple of the eras to finance the layout, or sound chipping as sound seems to be a clear benefit of DCC  for me as I don't need banking, double heading, a large loco depot, and some of the other DCC "advantages" !

 

I will try to answer the queries particularly about the isolation when I have time to look again at the comments and compose a clear reply. Might not get to this until the weekend.

 

Cheers

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

16 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

My strong suspicion about the situation:

 

- The OP has built up a large very miscellanous collection of locos/rolling stock over many years. This includes a little vintage H-D and Triang

- He now has a space 12' x 8' available to build the "dream layout" he has always promised himself on which to run his collection

- Because of eyesight limitations/age (he is 70) , he has decided to get this professionally built for him

- A trackplan - probably quite dense - for a double track continuous circuit layout with ? relief line / branch line has been drawn up and signed off

- The builder has now turned round and said "You know , if we did this DCC I could charge you quite a bit less than doing it in DC"

 

At this point , he has come on here and started the thread

 

The OP will no doubt be able to confirm /clarify.

 

Now the big issues are crawling out:

 

- The Triang is probably incompatible with modern Peco track (B2B too tight) . On the other hand the H-D would be compatible with Peco code 100 (which he has said he intends to use) - if he goes DC

- Half the fleet would require hard-wired DCC installations, and the OP isn't happy doing his own DCC-Ready installations , never mind hard-wiring

- The OP quite likes the idea of DCC Sound, but has realised the cost implications are huge on a fleet this big . Hence the interest in TTS

 

We've all be casually assuming Tortoises and Cobalts as point motors , but I suspect that solenoids may be specified to keep costs down  

 

I also suspect the spec may call for insulfrog points.

 

A professional build of the sort of "mighty wurlitzer" control panel required under DC would clearly take a lot of work, at a hefty cost per man-hour

 

The cost of professional installation of DCC decoders on 200 will also be very expensive, even without sound decoders

Not quite right, and I will forgive the slightly patronising tone!

Hands up all those who can truthfully say they only have the exact locos they need, and will never buy another one? I thought so-the silence is deathly.

 

The locos are not a miscellaneous collection, there has been a plan all along (at least for the last 30 years or so that I have been working to 4 eras, the 2016 version is only a couple of years old!).

 

The layout has not yet been signed off, although I am reasonably happy with where we are. The suggestion of DCC did come from the builder after the first iteration of the plan. Do not yet own the copyright of the plan so cannot share it and other forums have been rude about my sketches in the past and suggested I buy a layout drawing package!

 

Cheers

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

2 hours ago, shiny said:

Agreed.

OP is clearly struggling to grasp the basics - that much is obvious. He started the thread by questioning the advice given to him by a professional layout builder - because he didn't understand what he was asking the professional to do. And judging by his most recent posting - still doesn't get it. Yet.

He hasn't done himself any favours either by being selective about what information he chooses to share.

Heated discussion about a dozen separate technical topics at once - whilst entertaining - are not going to help OP in any way shape or form if he doesn't understand what any of us are talking about. It just adds to the perception that xyz is over priced and over complicated. Whilst educational and informative to those who understand it - it is nothing more than noise as far as OP is concerned.

Anyway, chances are that said layout builder whose professional judgement was questioned - may read this and simply refuse to do business with him. If for no other reason than a customer who doesn't know what he is buying is going to be extremely unhappy with the finished product.

 

I vote Lock.

 

.

If people stayed with the theme instead of going off on their own pet sagas of their own choice of equipment, we would all be a lot better off!

 

Half the people who answered this didn't get the basics of what I said in what I thought was a short clear initial statement.

 

Giving them more facts and a track plan that they wont understand unless I include the two page" why the layout is wanted how it is shown on my sketch" that was sent to potential suppliers, which I suspect few would bother to read, would be a waste of time!!

 

Cheers

Paul  

[melmerby]

Forgive me but your first post was IMHO too vague and you only came back in on the third page.

By that time much speculation had been made as to what you might want and more details have only been teased out as the discussion has progressed.

It's a little wonder it has got somewhat out of control.

 

[WIMorrison]

Well said Keith

[Tallpaul69]

6 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Forgive me but your first post was IMHO too vague and you only came back in on the third page.

By that time much speculation had been made as to what you might want and more details have only been teased out as the discussion has progressed.

It's a little wonder it has got somewhat out of control.

 

Sorry, but I was away Friday-Monday on a family get together!

 

I was not to know that so many people would look at my post, and I have explained in my recent posts above why I did not provide all the information that some of the people say they MUST have!

Please look at my recent posts and then tell me what information other than things I have said I cannot provide, YOU need to respond?

 

Hope you reply, and don't just go off in a huff!!

 

Cheers

Paul

[Ravenser]

5 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

The reason for 200 locos is that I want to run the layout  in several eras. Originally 1962, 1977, 1992, 2007, and 2016. So that is roughly 40 locos per era. The three power districts are to simplify fault finding (I am told?)

……...

The way things are going  I  will have to sell the locos and stock of a couple of the eras to finance the layout, or sound chipping as sound seems to be a clear benefit of DCC  for me as I don't need banking, double heading, a large loco depot, and some of the other DCC "advantages" !

 

I will try to answer the queries particularly about the isolation when I have time to look again at the comments and compose a clear reply. Might not get to this until the weekend.

 

Cheers

Paul

 

I wasn't aware of the "master-plan" -  a lot of people seem to end up  acquiring large and rather mixed collections for the Promised Day, which is what I'd sort of suspected.

 

I've got some idea of where you're coming from , as I've ended up with 3 sets of stock for different periods on my own layout. At the same time I suspect I've partly ended up making a rod for my own back.

 

So I'm going to quibble slightly with the master-plan. I can see you've worked on a concept of stepping 15 years through history, with "contemporary" bolted on at the end.

 

From my own experience I think 5 suites of stock is too many and will simply become an unmanageable burden . I've found I'm struggling to keep on top of 3 much smaller suites (about 10-12 items of traction each) , plus the rather different stock for my boxfile

 

I started with 2 periods . I was involved with a club project which was post 2000, and I wanted a lifeboat for the stuff I'd inevitably acquired in connection with the project. And my personal main interest was 1980s BR , so that was the second period.

 

The post-privatisation period became defined as the period of the Central Trains franchise (to end 2007) because I have quite a few items in Central livery

 

The BR period is 1985 -90, because I wanted a blue Cravens DMU (withdrawn 1985) and 153s (converted 1990) to be able to make up DMU formations in multiple. Effectively this is a Corporate Blue/ Sectorised mix, as the 80s were

 

And along the way I decided I could have a not-especially-authentic steam era (nominally c1958) so that the various out of period kits and RTR locos I'd somehow acquired could at least be used from time to time, rather than mouldering in boxes

 

That has resulted in a lot of work building carriages - 3-4 sets plus a short parcels train has taken a lot of modelling time, and they're nothing more ambitious than plastic kits. Obviously the BR Corporate signage etc - though fine for 1985-90 , and 2000-7 , is quite wrong for 1958 when red enamelled plates would have been everywhere

 

The layout's been exhibited 3 or 4 times as 1980s BR - and if I'm honest it may be 3 years since I last had a proper post-privatisation operating session. The fact that the layout is portable and blocks up the sitting room doesn't help, admittedly.

 

I fear your 5 period master-plan may prove too ambitious in practice. If you are considering scaling it back, then I can't see a great difference between the two post-privatisation periods, so consolidating these to one, with 50 items of traction, covering a particular franchise period (or transition) would be an obvious first step

 

1962 has zero cross-over with any of the other periods . Nothing from this period can be used with any other period. (And the signage and setting was very different)

 

On the other hand a lot of the stock from your 1977 period might well still have been running in 1992, and some of it would still have been in Corporate Blue. You lose unfitted stock at the end of 1983, and vac fitted freight stock by the end of the decade, but in the mid 80s you can run Sprinters , Pacers HSTS and 58s alongside traditional freight wagons 

 

If you were to consolidate 1977 and 1992, with the option to swap in some early stop /swap out some late stock to flex the period , at around 50 items , you would still have nearly all of what you want (Surplus "late " items might go into the post-privatisation fleet. There was still a 153 in BR Regional Railways livery as late as 2008)

 

This might compress the fleet down to 3 periods (Steam/diesel, BR, post-privatisation) and about 140 items (40 + 50 + 50). It would make everything much more manageable , and presumably the non-DCC Ready locos would be more suitable for the cull. At the same time , youd still have nearly everything offered by your original master-plan

 

(That said, given the period many of these may be Bachmann 158s, Turbostars and Voyagers , which are decent models. I have to admit that mine have been running for a decade without lights - reinstating the lights after fitting decoders is one of the jobs on a very long list that I haven't got around to... They also need 2 or 3 decoders per unit to operate the lights - which adds to the cost of DCC)

 

In the context of the WR main line in the Thames Valley, I'm sceptical that a separate 1977 period is justifiable for the sake of a token blue Western and a few unfitted wagons- which I assume is the logic. It would make more sense to aim for c1984-6, to incorporate 59s on Foster Yeoman aggregates, and a mix of blue/grey and InterCity liveried HSTs as signature items, though clearly they cannot be scale length. I couldn't quite cram a scale length HST onto 16' x 12' for the club project. Vac fitted stock could still run.

 

Admittedly this isn't quite consistant with Cl 165 units, (introduced 1990) but I think one compromise that will need to be accepted is a slight "smearing" of eras, with 165s taking over from Modernisation Plan 117s and 121s, a mix of blue/grey and InterCity HSTs, 59s but a few older vac braked goods. All things the spotters would have seen in the period 1985-90 - but some of them missed each other by a couple of years

 

Turbostars, Voyagers and 158s are not relevant in that setting - but Bachmann Networker Turbos pose exactly the same DCC issues

Edited February 27, 2019 by Ravenser
in the light of further info as to plan & setting

[WIMorrison]

A simple question - with this huge amount of locos and stock how will it be taken off and on the layout?

 

I have a friend with an exceptionally good layout that is mid-1950s 99% of the despite him possessing massive amounts of wonderful stock and locos from other eras sitting on the shelfs and display cabinets - his layout is also in an 8x10 shed.

 

The reason you ask? because it takes him so much time to move everything on and off despite having large amounts of it stored in cassettes for 'easy' transfer.

 

Might this be worth thinking about?

[Harlequin]

4 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

The reason for 200 locos is that I want to run the layout  in several eras. Originally 1962, 1977, 1992, 2007, and 2016. So that is roughly 40 locos per era. The three power districts are to simplify fault finding (I am told?)

I have not included a track plan because I don't think my initial sketch is good enough to show from the holes contributors picked in an earlier version I shared (although admittedly not on this forum!). I do not yet own the copyright in the track plans  put together by potential builders, so cannot share them!

I tried to ask my question as simply as possible because I know from experience (present company excepted) that people don't read a lot of detail, they switch off after a couple of sentences and then ask why I have not told them things that were there if they read the whole thing!

So it is a fine balance to give enough facts so your question can be answered without half the readers switching off and missing some of the facts!

 

The way things are going  I  will have to sell the locos and stock of a couple of the eras to finance the layout, or sound chipping as sound seems to be a clear benefit of DCC  for me as I don't need banking, double heading, a large loco depot, and some of the other DCC "advantages" !

 

I will try to answer the queries particularly about the isolation when I have time to look again at the comments and compose a clear reply. Might not get to this until the weekend.

 

Cheers

Paul

 

Hi Paul,

 

I said this topic made me uneasy because it reminded me of another about a year ago where the OP was overambitious, unrealistic, and held critical information too close to his chest. The participants gave their best advice openly and generously but the OP ignored it or gradually revealed that it was not applicable in his case while continuing to demand more input. It spiralled down into a bad place.

 

I assume that you posted the designs in "Nearly Slough" and "Partly Maidenhead" because you wanted useful, practical feedback. We were simply telling you what we thought the flaws were and how you could address them but both topics ended without resolution. I hope your new layout designers have produced something sensible for you.

 

I still find it odd that you can't post the new designs for your own layout but, fair enough, you have given reasonable explanations for what you're doing so I look forward to seeing and hearing more about developments when you can reveal them.

 

BTW: double-heading, etc, are not the primary advantages of DCC - they were just presented as some of the things that DCC can do because of it's inherent advantages.

 

Good Luck!

Edited February 27, 2019 by Harlequin

[Philou]

Hi chums,

 

I'm with Paul on this regarding stock and I'll hold my hand up to having loadsa trains for 'the' layout. The one thing I did was to realise', as another poster said above, that my vintage stock (early H-D and 1970s Hornby plus a bit of Airfix and Mainline) just does not cut the mustard in quality nor standard compared to what is available off the shelf at the moment. It will not be converted (and I shan't sell it on either as the old stock was bought or given when money was tight and I happen to like it anyway).

 

However, having been retired for a while and money being a little freer, I have fallen into bad ways (again) and have replaced my old stock with near-enough the same items!!! So, in a similar way to Paul, I did think of running periods: Steam (1900 - 1960s), the modernisation period (1950s - 1960s), the latter as I have a soft spot for the odd and quirky diesels (Fell anyone?).  Then I went and bought some very modern stock last week .................

 

The point was made above - if you want to run 'periods' nice, if you have the stock to do it, but what about everything else? The station signboards, the buildings, even things like platform lighting. The stations I want to model have all changed over the years so much so that one no longer exists and the other is devoid of its buildings. I know Rule 1 always applies, and unless Paul just wants something to run, I now realise it is important in its own way if you want your stock to run in a particular period, that everything ought to be in context.

 

This thread has made me think more seriously about what I want out of my layout - perhaps Paul should too (but go for DCC anyway ).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: Sorry if it seems I was hijacking - but the comments above have made me rethink regardless of the DC/DCC angle.

[Dungrange]

6 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

So a DCC layout will cost less?

 

Again I will quote one of the DCC advisors "simple DC layouts are just that , simple cheap and understandable at a basic level. That suits “ some “ people ( though less and less )"

 

Everyone is shooting from the hip simply because we do not know what the target is. A new layout......5 periods......200 locos...... 12 feet by 8 feet..... 60 plus points......sorry this is a bit vague without a track plan.

This is my "simple" DC layout. It took less than a week to wire up. It works, and what is even better it is fun to operate. By myself I will only have three trains/light engines moving but with a second operator 4 is the practical maximum. 

 

Something that I should not be able to do on DC, four 2 car DMUs in multiple snaking across the station throat. All four powered. Sorry to offend people with some part made models but I enjoy modelling more than electronics......having worked for Marconi's.

 

Last weekend I was operating a shunting layout which was DCC operated. I just didn't get the hang of the inertia control, as soon as the train started I had to take of the power and apply the brake, it was pot luck if I stopped where I wanted to. Far harder than driving a real loco.

 

 

 

Well, I think the reason for this thread is that the OP was informed by a layout builder that it would be cheaper to build the layout (minus stock) as DCC and I'm not surprised at that once you realise that you are substituting 'cheaper' for 'quicker to design and build'.  However, once you add in the cost of converting a large fleet of locomotives, I'm fairly sure that DCC is definitely not the cheaper option.

 

I agree with you fully that the specification is a bit vague and therefore so is some of the advice and the lack of succinctness of the question is the reason for numerous detours into unrelated aspects.  I wouldn't call your layout 'simple', but for many people, designing the wiring for a relatively complex track plan (like the one you have) with multiple 'cabs' can be a challenge and this is where DCC has an advantage.  There is a bit less need to plan where to put section breaks for isolating sections and define which controllers power which sections when you effectively just have two permanently powered rails.  Frog switching is the only vaguely difficult part to grasp.  When getting a layout built, its not just the physical build time that matters, but also the time spent planning where to put all the section breaks and what types of switch will control them.

 

I don't see any reason why you can't run four DMUs in multiple on DC as per your photograph, provided they all have similar speed and acceleration profiles.  We operate a Banker on one of our club DC layouts without requiring DCC.  However, we can only attach the banker because an isolating section for the lead locomotive was designed in from the start.  We also only bank trains where the lead locomotive and banker are considered compatible.  The only advantages that DCC would offer in relation to your multiple DMU lash up would be the opportunity to adjust the speed profiles within the decoders if they weren't well matched and to allow the consist to be broken up anywhere on the layout.  However, if you have isolating sections in all the places that you might want to split the consist, then I can see why you feel DCC doesn't have anything to offer you.

[Dungrange]

On 26/02/2019 at 14:03, Tallpaul69 said:

I have looked at a lot of layouts at shows, but there is often not much in 00 between the shunting layout, so no continuous run, and the 24ft 4-6 operator club layouts. Don't think I have ever seen anyone exhibiting a 12ftx8ft layout, run single handed, portraying a main line and branch/ relief line which is what my layout is all about?

Paul,

 

I understand what you are saying.  Many individuals build relatively small shunting layouts because that is all that they have space for at home.  However, such layouts don't suit everyone and if you want a bigger layout and don't have the space, it is perhaps natural to join a model railway club.  Club projects tend to be what many individuals would like to have at home but don't have the space for and being able to run your own stock on a 24 ft long layout is great.  It's one of the reasons I'm a member of my local club.  This can therefore present exhibition managers with two 'pools' of layouts - small layouts owned by individuals and large layouts owned by clubs.

 

However, there are layouts on the exhibition circuit that are not much bigger than your 12 ft by 8 ft.  The difference is that at an exhibition, these layouts are probably not operated single handed.  The reason for that is simple - the exhibitor is trying to 'entertain' the public and that generally means running as many trains as possible.  In theory there is nothing to stop you starting a train on your up line, starting another train on your down line and then shunting a train on your branch line while the others run non-stop.  However, for exhibition purposes, it's probably easier to have three separate operators.  Exhibiting can be tiring, especially if trying to control multiple trains simultaneously for eight hours.

 

Is the plan that the layout will only ever be operated by you, or are you likely to want to have friends round for an operating session?

[melmerby]

7 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

 

Something that I should not be able to do on DC, four 2 car DMUs in multiple snaking across the station throat. All four powered.

 

Last weekend I was operating a shunting layout which was DCC operated. I just didn't get the hang of the inertia control, as soon as the train started I had to take of the power and apply the brake, it was pot luck if I stopped where I wanted to. Far harder than driving a real loco.

 

 

Who said you shouldn't be able to run several units on DC?

What inertia? I don't have inertia on my DCC hand controls.

 

Again more misinformation.

[Clive Mortimore]

6 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Who said you shouldn't be able to run several units on DC?

What inertia? I don't have inertia on my DCC hand controls.

 

Again more misinformation.

Ah! you are wrong it is not misinformation.

 

I have been told many times that with DC double heading is not possible, which is misinformation. What I have shown is reality.

 

The layout I was operating at the weekend had inertia. Not a lie but a fact. The owner of the layout did not want it disabled. Not my layout.

 

 

[Phil S]

A cat among the pigeons?...not having seen the design intention, but reflecting on the range of stock, and the implied desire to see it running frequently and easily.....  The op may be familiar with some layout designs based on 'plain line'  whether across a sea front, Yorkshire dale or through a city..... The main feature being a sequence of moving trains.   IF ( these 2 'fast' tracks for example) were fed from a train elevator ....then point work is avoided and a range of wheel standards woul all work ....even vintage tri-ang might  ( if not with Peco 100, then other makes of track are available such as fleishmann profi track ... Ready ballasted so labour cost saving with reliable fishplate connections 8-) )

' Automation' of such a controlled loop works on DC/analogue. Very easily ... As it does not care which loco number it is...only where it is... And with optical stop/position detectors ... Which might even be built into the train elevator itself.... A whole set of 'the day's trains' could be left to run through

Sequentially very simply ... With no DCC conversion cost, or even point work costs!  The cost being the elevator system from 500- x000.

 

Attention might then be given to 'other aspects' of the layout  .... With moving cars ( Faller with open DCCcontrol),   or trams or other trains .. Provided they do not link with the main automated (vintage) loop if dcc is used for the more controllable trains.... Perhaps a shunting area fed from 'slow lines' either side of the non-stop vintage or newer passing trains.    Using something like heathcote irdots .... Even the 'analogue mainlines' could have the occasional stopping service.  This 'nondcc solution' or even hybrid solution' may seem like heracy in a DCC group ( and I've been digital since Zero-1 launched.  And my digital  loco total is well over the....  But achieved over many years).. But considering the accumulated stock status  and interest... Might be an optimum path forward

 

[Ravenser]

7 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

So a DCC layout will cost less?

 

Again I will quote one of the DCC advisors "simple DC layouts are just that , simple cheap and understandable at a basic level. That suits “ some “ people ( though less and less )"

 

Everyone is shooting from the hip simply because we do not know what the target is. A new layout......5 periods......200 locos...... 12 feet by 8 feet..... 60 plus points......sorry this is a bit vague without a track plan.

This is my "simple" DC layout. It took less than a week to wire up. It works, and what is even better it is fun to operate. By myself I will only have three trains/light engines moving but with a second operator 4 is the practical maximum. 

 

Something that I should not be able to do on DC, four 2 car DMUs in multiple snaking across the station throat. All four powered. Sorry to offend people with some part made models but I enjoy modelling more than electronics......having worked for Marconi's.

 

Last weekend I was operating a shunting layout which was DCC operated. I just didn't get the hang of the inertia control, as soon as the train started I had to take of the power and apply the brake, it was pot luck if I stopped where I wanted to. Far harder than driving a real loco.

 

 

 

Clive:

 

Since the mechanisms are more or less standard throughout - Hornby ringfields - speed matching is largely dealt with.  Joining and splitting units repeatedly in the course of a session would be much more of an issue , as would be attaching/ detaching tail traffic (I have a handful of small parcels vans in play for this duty)

 

As for inertia control , it's not mandatory. You can program it in to taste - and clearly your taste and the layout owner's differed sharply on this one. Personally I tone the deceleration right down - anything above 2 out of 0-9 is far too much. Acceleration can be much gentler, but I don't want to whack the buffers, so stop should mean stop.

 

 

[Junctionmad]

Nothing about the layout pictured could be regarded as “ simple “ and would be very complex to wire for elaborate DC control. Dcc would be ideal 

[Dungrange]

On 26/02/2019 at 00:43, Andymsa said:

 

Another option is a 12 pack of tortoise which works out to £15 per motor and your accessory decoder is a dac 20 at £65.00 per board. This works out to the same as the digital cobalt.

Andy,

 

I agree that there are plenty of alternatives when it comes to point motors and also accessory decoders to control them.  I was only highlighting the Cobalt ip because effectively the same motor comes in two forms.  I think that the DAC20 is only capable of controlling eight Tortoise, which means that the cost per output is actually just over £8 or around twice as much as the difference in price between the Cobalt ip Analogue and the Cobalt ip Digital.  The difference is of course that the DAC20 provides feedback via LocoNet, whereas the Cobalt ip Digital does not, so perhaps you end up with a slightly better solution at a similar overall cost (if going DCC).

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Sorry, but I was away Friday-Monday on a family get together!

 

I was not to know that so many people would look at my post, and I have explained in my recent posts above why I did not provide all the information that some of the people say they MUST have!

Please look at my recent posts and then tell me what information other than things I have said I cannot provide, YOU need to respond?

 

Hope you reply, and don't just go off in a huff!!

 

Cheers

Paul

Hi Paul

I am hardly likely to go off in a huff as the post was made in a good natured manner, hence the smiley at the end.

 

I just feel your original post left too much to individual interpretation.

The fact that the layout was intended to be a contract build wasn't made clear and only emerged later and the costs involved with that have a huge impact on the actual recommendations that others would make.

A bit more information at the start would have stopped an awful lot of confusion and speculation.

You have now, as far as I can tell, given all the salient information.

 

I admire your plan and hope you can get it to where you want it.

We all have ideals and my layout has evolved somewhat from that originally envisaged. I now have some 60 points and 100+ individual blocks, that's a lot more complicated than my original plan.

I didn't intend operating the points from DCC having started with a (home brew) CDU and some thyristors to switch such things as H&M point motors using either a pointer and stud or push buttons but have evolved through Seeps & Lenz LS150s ending up with NCE Switch-8s & Tortoises.

I would recommend you consider allowing for re-thinks/adjustments along the way, in case something gets set in stone that you would like to change later.

 

To a certain extent I also run 4 fleets of locos (although only 60-70 in total) as I model Grouping to WW2 but with all 4 companies and have the various stock out at different times.

I also have the (mostly) appropriate vehicles, 400+ wagons and 175 coaches, to run with the locos.

Edited February 27, 2019 by melmerby

[Clive Mortimore]

26 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

Nothing about the layout pictured could be regarded as “ simple “ and would be very complex to wire for elaborate DC control. Dcc would be ideal 

It was simple, two wires to each section.

Each point needed three wires and where I had used electrofrog points each point self latching relay needed the two section wires and a third to the frog. 

It was just repeated a few times. 

In addition to each section switch there is controller selection switch. Four controllers, four trains are the maximum that can be run without any conflicting moves. The whole layout took about a week to wire up. Half of that time was recording and labeling of the wires. I still have the signals to wire up, I am still making the signals.

The control panel, which so far has been operated by all my visitors with no problems. Including one friend who has no interest in trains but enjoyed playing with my train set.

 

27 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

Clive:

 

Since the mechanisms are more or less standard throughout - Hornby ringfields - speed matching is largely dealt with.  Joining and splitting units repeatedly in the course of a session would be much more of an issue , as would be attaching/ detaching tail traffic (I have a handful of small parcels vans in play for this duty)

 

Not all my stock has Hornby Ringfields and depending on the year of manufacture they do vary in performance. I have run multiple unit trains of equal length and number of units with a mix of Bachmann, Lima and Hornby motors with no problems.  I can add and detach units in the station, the layout wasn't planned with that in mind so on some platforms the isolating section is only a loco's length so I have to ensure the power unit is in the coach at the buffer stops, but as I say I did not plan that to be a feature, just you and a few others on my thread kept banging on about it so I proved I could do it.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[melmerby]

Whilst espousing the benefits of DC you came out with this statement:

"Last weekend I was operating a shunting layout which was DCC operated. I just didn't get the hang of the inertia control, as soon as the train started I had to take of the power and apply the brake, it was pot luck if I stopped where I wanted to. Far harder than driving a real loco."

 

When challenged you added this

 

36 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

The layout I was operating at the weekend had inertia. Not a lie but a fact. The owner of the layout did not want it disabled. Not my layout.

 

It comes across as a reason for not having DCC because there was no mention that it was an option that could be turned off, just as inertia is an option on some DC controllers.

[Clive Mortimore]

3 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Whilst espousing the benefits of DC you came out with this statement:

"Last weekend I was operating a shunting layout which was DCC operated. I just didn't get the hang of the inertia control, as soon as the train started I had to take of the power and apply the brake, it was pot luck if I stopped where I wanted to. Far harder than driving a real loco."

 

When challenged you added this

 

 

It comes across as a reason for not having DCC because there was no mention that it was an option that could be turned off, just as inertia is an option on some DC controllers.

Read things as you like, all I said it was a DCC operated layout and  I didn't get the hang of the inertia control.

Just one of the selling points of DCC is you can drive them like a real train. I have driven real locos, all be it on drive experience days not for a living but I didn't find it like a real loco.

 

Likewise I found the Gaugemaster  P and DS equally challenging, and I worked for Gaugemaster many moons ago trying to sell them. 

[WIMorrison]

Next time you are on a layout that has ‘inertia’ that you can’t handle then press the f4 which is the default on many decoders to operate direct control, I.e control without inertia and you should also try f3 which on many decoders will switch in shunting mode providing much slower more controlled running.

 

Both very useful functions provided easily by DCC

[Corbs]

7 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Just one of the selling points of DCC is you can drive them like a real train. I have driven real locos, all be it on drive experience days not for a living but I didn't find it like a real loco.

 

Likewise I found the Gaugemaster  P and DS equally challenging, and I worked for Gaugemaster many moons ago trying to sell them. 

 

Fair enough Clive although if we apply this the other way then when you did the driver experience days and applied the throttle, the loco parked next to yours didn’t take off as well

 

I’m just being cheeky! But individual loco control without isolating sections is what I felt was more realistic and was what drew me to DCC, all the other mod cons are just optional extras for me.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, WIMorrison said:

Next time you are on a layout that has ‘inertia’ that you can’t handle then press the f4 which is the default on many decoders to operate direct control, I.e control without inertia and you should also try f3 which on many decoders will switch in shunting mode providing much slower more controlled running.

 

Both very useful functions provided easily by DCC

Still not as easy as a twidly knob.