To DCC or not?

[Ravenser]

On ‎22‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 10:39, Tallpaul69 said:

Thanks Izzy,

So if its not cheaper, how much more expensive might it be, bearing in mind I am having this layout professionally built, [emphasis added] and I do want a mimic diagram, I need automation of the fiddle yard where most tracks will hold three trains. The mimic could well be on a laptop or large screen TV on the wall? 

Cheers

Paul

Back to the OP

 

Now this changes everything

 

Time is now money... Time is costed at professional rates in lots of pounds an hour

 

The big saving in time for your builder translates directly into a lower build cost to you. Therefore , follow your builder's advice and go DCC

 

You want a mimic diagram, and it's probably the simplest best way to go, anyway for this layout.

 

The best known software package is Railroad & Co. It comes in 3 flavours, Bronze,Silver and Gold - none are exactly cheap but in the context of your overall budget, euros 300 is probably not a big item... Bronze will probably do all that's necessary for a full mimic diagram, with full DCC point control. (Do you want full prototypical interlocking here? It can be done with this software)

 

RocRail , freeware

 

There was a freeware system originally developed by  a member of the Croydon club , and subsequently taken on I think by Andi Dell, that did the same

 

JMRI is really programming software - a bit on the lightweight side for this.

 

Talk to your builder and probably go with the package he knows and has used.

 

I have seen a complete interlocked "glass-panel" for a similar-sized layout  built in RR &Co in 1 man day by someone familiar with the software and the layout

 

I think you should go DCC for the accessory control and panel in this scenario. Very strongly so.

 

But you need the whole accessory/layout side on a separate circuit and DCC bus, rigorously isolated by circuit breaker from the traction bus.

 

That way the layout control is protected from shorts, and your layout control remains firmly on DCC even when a line runs on DC

 

You now need to find a system that supports computer control , via a USB connection (about £125) , delivers at least 4 amps, and will support a booster for a second power district.

 

My instinct would be to put each main line (you said you had 3?) on a separate power district . One power district would also support the accessory/layout side -  but that would be as a satellite section, rigorously walled off behind a circuit breaker . (Possibly the simplest power district could be switchable to DC. I suggest - not the one that handles the layout control side....)

 

On ‎22‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 11:01, Tallpaul69 said:

I had been thinking of having the two main lines plus a couple of fiddle yard roads each way switchable between DCC and DC, to allow running of my vintage Hoornby00 two rail and vintage Triang locos.(the track will be code 100). This would also allow running of some other older locos that cannot be chipped or others awaiting chipping. I will not be doing the chipping myself, my skill level/eyesight is not up to it!

Cheers

Paul   

 

I think it will create lots of work, potential problems and extra cost. The way forward may be a single semi-isolated circuit within the layout plan which can be used to run the DC locos. That might involve a little reconsideration of the plan

 

Alternatively perhaps a DC branch line might be a solution? 

 

The issue is that absolute electrical isolation between DC and DCC is necessary. Absolute electrical isolation of each main running line from the rest of the layout, and the other running line strikes me as a  potential problem In addition , you lumber yourself /your builder with all the complex circuitry 

 

H-D locos are the worst of all to fit decoders . Vintage Triang may not like modern Peco points - check first

 

I would advise you to tackle the DCC Ready locos yourself. The only skills required are the ability to take out small screws and remove the body, coupled with the ability to plug a decoder into a socket the right way round. Then you can program them up - shouldn't take a lot of adjustment

 

Anything requiring hard-wiring is another matter. But getting someone else to fit decoders will cost £15-35 per loco on top of the cost of the decoder  depending on what needs to be done. 

 

So doing the DCC Ready ones yourself will save you £1500 to £3500

[Ravenser]

4 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

I suspect it’s an installation fault not a DCC fault quite frankly , 10 mins with a meter would reveal the issue , 

 

 

Sorry, but an hour and a half with a meter on a 4MT  left me scratching my head, and wondering if I exuded a negative force field...

[shiny]

I don't know how much OP has taken away from this discussion, but I have definitely picked up some useful very nuggets of information from this thread - and it is much appreciated.

 

However I don't believe the question OP was asking was "which one should I use?", or "which one is better?"

 

Rather he seemed to be seeking reassurance that the advice he was given by the company he was intending to purchase his railway from was actually correct, and that they weren't 'avin a 'larf regarding the eye-watering sum of money they were asking for in order to build his track plan as a DC railway to run his vintage trains on - without actually coming right out and saying as much.

 

TBH I think OP may have been somewhat incredulous that the railway he wanted to buy was going to cost considerably more without chips than it would with chips. Which when you think about it, does seem kind of counter-intuitive if your experience of DC hasn't yet reached the stage of running anything more complicated than an oval and a couple of sidings. It's just red and black, right? Why should it cost more than DCC? We already know the answer to that, but OP clearly didn't.

 

Likewise, maybe OP had heard that he could run DCC on a DC layout, and possibly assumed that the opposite also held true - that he could run DC on a DCC layout. Otherwise he wouldn't have said he was thinking about making it switchable between DC/DCC after a number of posters had already told him it was not a good idea.

Perhaps he already knew that DCC locos will run on DC out-of-the-box, and had assumed that switching a layout between DC/DCC involves nothing more complicated than flicking a switch on the controller.

Maybe he'd heard about the "pseudo DC" mode of some DCC systems which would have let him do exactly that alongside DCC locos - albeit with a single DC loco. OP made it pretty clear on page 4 that he had lost interest in the whole idea anyway, but if he does end up reading this: don't try pseudo DCC at home folks - the motor will overheat and die.

 

To be fair to the OP, there are an awful lot of dots to connect before the picture starts to make sense. Some of us might see a giraffe - others will see some sort of weird floating-head horse creature instead..

 

Anyway; I think we managed to convince OP that the price he was quoted reflects the amount of work involved in building an analogue railway of the size and complexity he wanted, bearing in mind that he was not intending to do any of the work himself, and based on the little information he volunteered - hadn't given much thought to it beyond "I would like to run XYZ vintage locos.." OP has assumed, quite reasonably, that he could write a cheque - and somebody else would sort it all out for him. Like most of us tend do when the MOT is due.

I can't help feeling bad for OP - we've basically told him that the ultimate dream railway he wanted to buy himself for his retirement is out of reach unless he learns a whole bunch of skills or wins the lottery PDQ.

 

Hopefully it won't deter him for too long, maybe he'll rethink his approach and sit down with a book of plans and a brew - and eventually find something more affordable that lets him showcase his collection but still gives him plenty of operating potential.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by shiny
because rule #1applies

[Phil S]

Is it time to suggest some independant research by the OP... falling into a couple of areas..

What inspires him in the way of a model railway/model world and then online examples of controllers and automation (as separate choices  - handheld or console - smartphone/tablet with track display options - or 'fixed screen' displays - or a combination of them all!  eg z21.eu before having a layout built which may provide only short term satisfaction! 

A simple (even dc) loop of LGB in the garden  can be a great background to a garden or barbeque - even with sound and lights.  But once it is enlarged to become a 'full railway' with points and stations and passing loops, then it crosses the line to be better controlled wirelessly and digitally ...dcc being a good example.

 

You Tube videos of places like Miniatur Wunderland (Miwula) in Hamburg, and Miniworld in Rotterdam, as 2 of the many examples available on You Tube (or other platforms) FOR FREE RESEARCH to both illustrate what is possible and in some case how it can be achieved - regardless of whether the OP is going to build it himself or not, as in this case apparently - seeing how other various examples are pitt together may also highlight the areas of his interest.

The particular examples, as they are near-continuous permanent public exhibitions, make the greatest use of automation - the 'control room' of Miwula having more monitors showing track diagrams (and remote video cameras) than I have seen in many tv studio galleries !   A fundamental difference between them and the 'seaside layout' of many years ago is that points and signals actually operate - they no longer just loops of track with aging scenary alongside - BUT they do, as do real railways, operate a repeating pattern of predictable services.

They also include other aspects - such as moving cars and animations - these add interest to visitors at shows, and may do so for the OP and their layout when using it -- although cars can be realistiically modelled as stationary in a summer holiday traffic jam !

 

I am frequently puzzled by the 'obsession' some appear to have with feedback of point position on their indoor layouts: with our G Scale in the garden, double checking a point has operated successully IS needed EVERY time - because we have (now had) a willow tree dropping bits onto the track beneath .... so operating a point both ways (remotely) allowed an audible check of the point changing ... but indoors, I do not find the reliability of my Rocoline points to so bad that I NEED a verified feedback of their position ...provided they are checked iniitally (AND VISUALLY) at the start of a session as ok.   This should not be confused with the NEED for feedback IF AUTOMATION or TRAIN TRACKING on the visual display is desired.... but it is not a 'problem' that 'dcc' does, or did not, originally include this - because a separated bus for feedback is more reliable than a combined bus where; if the outgoing signal/commnad is lost - so is the return information - the dead halt!

 

There are also a wide variety of point makes - dead/live/included or auto frog-switching, operation speed (by solenoid-servo, slow motion motor etc - all reliable with the use of a separate accessory control bus (using the same dcc signal, but separated at source from the at-risk track feed), and the included or auto-frog switching avoids the layout shutdown risk if a point is overrun. 

 

There was/is the S88 feedback bus - long estalished, pre-dating Lenz's NMRA dcc proposal , Lenz's RS feeback bus (not included in LS150 Accessory Decoders), with Railcom/Railcom+ using the 'track' dcc signal. Other options include Roconet Roco's feedback bus (occupancy), and, for MERG members: CAN or AT busses ( using the system developed for Car-wiring by Bosch   ... although a long term MERG member, I have not adopted this as I was/am already committed to the Roco feedback bus (bought when they were much much cheaper! ... for those who are price-obsessed)  .... but all these things can, when building the layout yourself, be added progressively as the layout is built and adapted ... less so when built professionally.

 

Having hundreds of locos to convert can be staged over months as required .. it being unlilely that ALL locos will be on the layout at once.  However .. it will be realised that SOME old locos are not worth converting and best retired if they havn't decayed already ...newer versions are probably already available! 

I use 'Expressnet'  - common to many makes of controller. Other options for 'control busses' include Loconet - and with the nw-combined Roco and Fleischmann ... both Expressnet and Loconet are included in the Z21.

Digikeijs make the 5000 controller ... and they allow the S88 bus to be used as well.  Plenty of choices - but the decision is best made after spending some time researching them all - evn just from the armchair.

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Phil S
minor correction

[trustytrev]

10 hours ago, Chris M said:

I just don’t see that dcc provides a near prototypical running experience any more than dc and yes I have tried both. There is no right or wrong, just what works for you.

 

On my garden railway and one OO loco I have installed battery powered radio control and I rate this as absolutely brilliant. No wires at all for track, no track cleaning and no stalling on points; you really are driving the loco and not the track.  I really think this is by far the best system but as yet it is not suitable for N. It is great for older 00 diesels where there is plenty of room in the body for batteries. It’s a shame that the likes of Bachmann and Hornby have no interest in BPRC because I think it would be a great step forwards. I just use NIMH batteries and they run for a long time between charges. The only down side I have found is that locos don’t stop when they come off the track...

Hello,

       Do these batteries take up less space than a DCC chip and can the locomotives be controlled/run as well/easily as DCC fitted ones?  And cost?

trustytrev.

[Phil S]

37 minutes ago, trustytrev said:

  Do these batteries take up less space than a DCC chip and can the locomotives be controlled/run as well/easily as DCC fitted ones?  And cost?

trustytrev.

Phil: Wireless (Bluetooth) DCC IS available and used by the OpenDCC (Fallertype) Car System:

The cars have a dcc decoder installed, and a bluetooth radio receiving module - this gives a wireless link, but not position information as such. However, the 'track dcc' can be applied to Infra Red LEDs - as an alternative or parallel communications link (1 way) transmitting the same control information. 

Placing IR LEDs by a level crossing, and linking them to the warning lights can be used to stop any approaching vehicle ( that has the infra red proximity detection fore and aft - slows then stops vehicles in a queue.

 

This will shortly be allowing me to control my original Faller Car System vehicles with variable speed, lights, indicators (and sound options)  from the same handset(s) (including Phone/Android,Mac,Roco LANMultimaus) as I use to control everything else on the layout with complete freedom of movement - or from a touch screen (cabled) monitor which shows my complete track plan+.  (My Kit arrived on Friday from Germany - 'non MERG kits are also available' from various sources such as Opendcc/resellers)

 

The ability to scroll a layout plan on a tablet to see point/signal settings and then tap to change them with ease COULD of course be used 'on a dc [trackpower] layout': it just makes sense to use an established communication system for an off the shelf solution,

and place the  controller in the recipient loco. ......

A MERG Kit is available [to members] to ENCODE switches from a Hardware-panel to DCC to operate points - using just 2 wires between modules/boards, and standard accessory decoders  ... 'Paco' in Canada modified the design to generate the more useful Expressnet output - allowing the panel to act like any other controller, in 'parallel' with them (upto 32)  .... And Digi-cz in the Czech Republic  offer  further-modified ready built versions (push button or switch input)  and suitable Display Feedback Modules .... although now 'Concepts have released  Alpha modules which provide a similar functionality.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Phil S
tryping errers

[WIMorrison]

iTrain is the software I use to run my railway (cheaper and easier than the other major market offering) and it will run Faller cars together with the trains

[trustytrev]

9 hours ago, Neil said:

 

I'm similarly amused when locos are driven into wrongly set trailing points on DCC layouts and everything shuts down.

 

It's obvious that you have your preferences and I have mine. We both have different opinions over what constitutes complexity and what trade offs we're prepared to make when it comes to selecting a system.

 

 

It's a DCC ready model with a factory fitted socket. It works perfectly on DC, with the DC  blanking plate out it shows no short on DCC yet put a chip in (one we know works, tested in another loco before and after) and it shorts. Try another working chip and it does the same. Even if there's some weird sh!t decoder/socket interface thing going on it's still a DCC problem as all is well on DC.

 

I'm not saying that DCC is the spawn of the devil, or the model railway equivalent of the emperors new clothes, but I will say that it's not without it's negative points and that pretending that it's perfect or that it will suit eveyone's needs is just plain wrong.

Hello,

       I may be missing something but to run on Dc don't you need to fit the blanking plate? It wont short on DCC if there is no blanking plate fitted either. That is because the locomotive motor is disconnected from the track due to an incomplete circuit. Sound like the problem mentioned could be due to lack of knowledge rather than the DCC chip.

trustytrev.

[melmerby]

30 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

iTrain is the software I use to run my railway (cheaper and easier than the other major market offering) and it will run Faller cars together with the trains

As will the "other brand"

[Phil S]

16 minutes ago, trustytrev said:

Hello,

       I may be missing something but to run on Dc don't you need to fit the blanking plate? It wont short on DCC if there is no blanking plate fitted either. That is because the locomotive motor is disconnected from the track due to an incomplete circuit. Sound like the problem mentioned could be due to lack of knowledge rather than the DCC chip.

trustytrev.

 

There are 2 basic possibilities, from experience, to try on this problem:

1/ is that the pins of any decoder inserted were longer than the blanking pligs, and made contact with metalwork below - it is a good idea to place a piece of plastic or insulating tape beneath the 8pin socket !!

 

2/ Factory fault wiring - I have had this with Hornby models - where the wires from the wheel pickups on one side have been wired to separate but adjacent pins on the socket - which in Analogue (where the blanking plug shorts the SAME 3 pins together on each end) does not cause a problem - BUT when they SHOULD be separated - for DCC use - having one of the track pickups wired to the SAME pin as a motor connection will destroy ANY decoder plugged in.  .... CAUTION this fault does NOT SHOW UP easily if the loco is inverted and the continuity tested one wheel at a time to the socket (with blanking plug in place) - IT DOES SHOW if each wheel pickup is continuity tested to the socket and ALL PINS/holes on the scket are chaecked ...

A Socket should ONLY have continuity of about 10-20 ohms between the motor terminals (as used by the grey and orange wiresd on a plug), and 0 to the appropriate wheel pickups from the track ( red or black on the plug) .... nothing to any other pins/holes if the (steam)loco has no lighting.  I check for continuity between all wheels on each side too.

 

An M7 may experience a short with a contact wire touching metal when the body is replaced - look for a large or off-centre solder blob!

 

[melmerby]

4 minutes ago, Phil S said:

There are 2 basic possibilities, from experience, to try on this problem:

1/ is that the pins of any decoder inserted were longer than the blanking pligs, and made contact with metalwork below - it is a good idea to place a piece of plastic or insulating tape beneath the 8pin socket !!

Interesting.

I've never seen a through hole socket for DCC all the ones I have seen are blind.

[trustytrev]

Hello,

      Perhaps decoder cost for DCC is a bit of a red herring really.

Don't all of us tend to go the extra mile when it comes to railway modelling be it better wheels, detail, etched chassis or repaints etc etc?

Surely that is one of the reasons we all come to this site anyway.

trustytrev.

[WIMorrison]

43 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Interesting.

I've never seen a through hole socket for DCC all the ones I have seen are blind.

 

Try the ROCO H0e DCC ready models, big hole underneath the socket for the chip pins to go into

 

54 minutes ago, melmerby said:

As will the "other brand"

 

everyday is a schoolday!

[trustytrev]

Hello,

      Here is a link to Luddite on google as I am at a loss as to why my post was disappeared. Good manners cost nothing.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=luddite+meaning

trustytrev.

[Chris M]

12 hours ago, trustytrev said:

Hello,

       Do these batteries take up less space than a DCC chip and can the locomotives be controlled/run as well/easily as DCC fitted ones?  And cost?

trustytrev.

Batteries obviously take up a lot of space.  A receiver costs £40 (this is an 18 volt 3 amp spec) and  batteries cost £15 to £20. It is well worth it for the wonderful running that you get when the loco has its own power source on board. Absolutely no chance of stallling on points no matter how slow you go and zero problems due to dirty track or dirty wheels. Will run anywhere whether there is a power supply or not. No need for a power bus or to worry about conductivity of fishplates. If it was adopted by the likes of Bachmann or Hornby the costs would come down and battery housing would be incorporated into the chassis design. There are many cheap,small battery radio control cars around so the technology is there for OO but probably not for N. The main manufacturers won’t go in this direction because they kind of like being able to sell all the expensive controllers etc required for dcc.

[melmerby]

23 minutes ago, Chris M said:

Batteries obviously take up a lot of space.  A receiver costs £40 (this is an 18 volt 3 amp spec) and  batteries cost £15 to £20. It is well worth it for the wonderful running that you get when the loco has its own power source on board. Absolutely no chance of stallling on points no matter how slow you go and zero problems due to dirty track or dirty wheels. Will run anywhere whether there is a power supply or not. No need for a power bus or to worry about conductivity of fishplates. If it was adopted by the likes of Bachmann or Hornby the costs would come down and battery housing would be incorporated into the chassis design. There are many cheap,small battery radio control cars around so the technology is there for OO but probably not for N. The main manufacturers won’t go in this direction because they kind of like being able to sell all the expensive controllers etc required for dcc.

Unless someone can come up with a battery the size of a DCC chip that will power the loco for hours this has a cat in hells chance of being "adopted" by any maiinstream manufacturer.

Dream on...

[Phil S]

22 minutes ago, Chris M said:

....The main manufacturers won’t go in this direction because they kind of like being able to sell all the expensive controllers etc required for dcc. 

Without the use of 'digital' technology ... in the same way as analogue TV only had 4 channels, and now we have many more - in high definition (regardless of the content - that is like dictating what locos you have) -

radio communications require the compactness that digital (compression) and signalling / communications to make efficient use of the spectrum - and with bluetooth or WiFi type technologies this IS now available ...

Marklin and Hornby do BOTH supply battery powered remore controlled trains.  and if, as with, for simple example of something already existing - the opendcc car system - dcc addressing 9999+ locos/vehicles shows a large-stock COULD be digitised that way - although I would suggest that power could still be picked up via the wheels - to provide the recharging path to internal batteries .... for some this would only mean powering a loco shed stabling yard - but station platforms might usefully be powered too. - this would help reduce the size of batteries (and consequent disposal/fire risk problems) . my point - as utilised by the open dcc car system - is that a totally new standard does not have to be invented - and comptibility is maintained.

(As bluetooth is 2-way - it also adds a feedback path - meeting that desire)

It is of coursa, part of the reasoning behand the CAN-BUS - RE-USING existing car technology for railways - keeps the prices down .... It is why Roco gave up on their Zig-Bee Multimaus Pro wireless handset, because its replacement Wifi black LANMultimaus version  can be sold at a much lower price 80ish instead of 160!

 

Roco already market 2 'ranges' with ( dc or dcc track power at 16V) and wifi-onboard for control - one for their Videolok camera trains/locos  and the other for their 'next Generation' sets .... a very cheap way of buying a high standard loco mechanism to try for experiments !!! ... they also have dcc included.

[Butler Henderson]

44 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Unless someone can come up with a battery the size of a DCC chip that will power the loco for hours this has a cat in hells chance of being "adopted" by any maiinstream manufacturer.

Dream on...

There is also  the issue that  typically a rc battery is around 5v output and hence a voltage booster is needed, consequently there is the need to fit the battery and two pcbs roughly the size of a Lenz Standard in a loco which given how much problem fitting a single decoder in causes is enough said on the matter. The way round is surgery on the chassis but given the complaints re the dcc ready Bachmann 57xx's having poor traction compared to the original non dcc ready Vlue Riband (ie not with a split chassis) losing weight is not a good idea,

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Butler Henderson said:

 The way round is surgery on the chassis but given the complaints re the dcc ready Bachmann 57xx's having poor traction compared to the original non dcc ready Vlue Riband (ie not with a split chassis) losing weight is not a good idea,

Off topic but it is the 2251 DCC ready loco that is really short of traction.

The DCC ready 57XXs haven't lost much metal in comparison. All the ones I have pull better than some tender locos, those weights in the tanks help.

[Junctionmad]

BPRC , which is an aside to this topic , is a niche product at present . It’s not possible at present to get realistic Li-ion batteries into small OO tank engines and the like , never mind the radio system , it’s hard even fitting DCC chip 

 

the second thing is that BPRC brings very little that   DCC cannot already do, and currently BPRC is a good bit more expensive then DCC 

 

the third thing and most important is the is no standard for BPRC with several manufacturers promoting incompatible systems, until a standards body of one form or another gets involved , BPRC will remain a niche product , suitable for a very small number of specialized applications ( larger scale garden railways and the like ) 

 

the  fourth is no BPRC company has shown scaled up control solutions , say for 200 locos or more , large scale accessory control etc 

 

all this technology is essentially to get around powering the rails , yet for most reasonably built layouts operating on nickel silver track indoors , pickup isn’t really an issue. 

 

BPRC is not a viable alternative to DCC or even DC at present , the technology shows promise , but many technology solutions fall by the wayside over time and I suspect without significant progress in battery tech BPRC will remain a niche player 

[Junctionmad]

Quote

 

I just don’t see that dcc provides a near prototypical running experience any more than dc and yes I have tried both. There is no right or wrong, just what works for you.

This is what annoys me about the DC versus DCC debate , this is a false truth being promoted as truth and it’s a big lie . ( see current political debates for similar stuff ) 

 

DCC allows you to move locos around your layout with the freedom of the protypes , locos can be stopped and parked anywhere , movements can take place with other locos on the same track section 

 

for example station pilot operations , attaching and detaching double headers and bankers , attaching or removing  stock at the end of trains , stabling locos close together , like the real thing 

 

yes , a complex sectioned DC layout CAN APPROACH , certain aspects of that prototype like freedom of movement , but only in a certain geographical area of the trackwork, where the isolation breaks and section feed breaks have to be carefully positioned to enable the move. If loco or train sits outside that section or straddles two sections , tough , you can’t perform the move in DC 

 

however ,in DC ,  where any sort of reasonably complex trackwork is involved , to achieve certain levels of loco movement can result in miles of wiring , interlocked sections and what not.  You only have to look at how DC cab control gets real complex real fast to see the issues , DCC has no additional complexity no matter how many locos you wish to control and where 

 

instrinsically ,  dcc drives the loco from its cab , DC CAN NEVER do this , it’s just not technically possible 

 

hence , while DC operation on a circle of track on your sitting room floor , may be similar to the same thing with DCC l it’s simply a false premise to put forward as a general comment. 

 

Dave 

Edited February 24, 2019 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

Quote

ts would come down and battery housing would be incorporated into the chassis design. There are many cheap,small battery radio control cars around so the technology is there for OO but probably not for N. The main manufacturers won’t go in this direction because they kind of like being able to sell all the expensive controllers etc required for dcc.

 

Firstly I’ve yet to see 100 radio controls cars being controlled by a radio system , yet I can see it being done by DCC 

 

secondly , however you dice the technology , at present, it’s simply not possible  to find a battery small enough , at a reasonable price, and powerful enough to fit into a small outline OO engine. , battery tech is limited by physics and moves much slower then electronic tech. It could be years away if ever. 

 

Secondly, radio tech to control a model railway is a far greater challenge then a few RC cars , you have to have a fully addressable radio system , capable of supporting a very wide address range , then you need standards to ensure cross compatibility , then you need allocation spectrums to ensure  that dense installations ( say at an exhibition) can all work reliably. ( for comparison see WiFi Alliance documentation and standards ) 

 

This leaves the issue of how to implement points and signals and power accessories , a solution BPRC has failed to address at present , because the majority of wiring in a DCC layout isn’t track wiring at all.

 

the main manufactures won’t “ go in that direction” , because the technology is immature, l the demand is niche and uncertain , the battery size issue remains a formidable technical hurdle and the issue of point, signal and accessory control remains undecided , it’s nothing to do with selling you expensive control systems , because let me assure you , a comphrensive multi channel BPRC solution will be significantly dearer then current DCC. 

 

when NMRA look at standardizing BPRC, maybe then it might be worth looking at , I won’t hold my breath however 

Edited February 24, 2019 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

17 hours ago, Phil S said:

Is it time to suggest some independant research by the OP... falling into a couple of areas..

What inspires him in the way of a model railway/model world and then online examples of controllers and automation (as separate choices  - handheld or console - smartphone/tablet with track display options - or 'fixed screen' displays - or a combination of them all!  eg z21.eu before having a layout built which may provide only short term satisfaction! 

.............

 

A simple (even dc) loop of LGB in the garden  can be a great background to a garden or barbeque - even with sound and lights.  But once it is enlarged to become a 'full railway' with points and stations and passing loops, then it crosses the line to be better controlled

I use 'Expressnet'  - common to many makes of controller. Other options fornd they allow the S88 bus to be used as well.  Plenty of choices - but the decision is best made after spending some time researching them all - evn just from the armchair.

 

Phil , your post is to long to quote 

 

DCC was never designed to be a feedback bus , and it isn’t .  In fact powering points by DCC can be problematic where you phantom power off the DCC track feed , Servo motor based mechanism can have upto ½ amp requirements per motor , and this can cause applicable power loading on the DCC system , requiring extra wiring , extra boosters etc. 

 

a layout control bus, whether it’s MERG CBUS , S88 , or the many other proprietary or semi-propriety systems out there is specifically tailored to reliable two way accessory control. 

 

Feedback of points is very useful, on our O gauge layout significant parts of the trackwork can be 30 feet away and many points are hidden from the bobbies view . The layout is controlled by a 50 lever frame , and it’s not practical for the Bobbie to eyeball every point movement , the consequence of incorrect point movement in O are quite dramatic in some cases as the momentum of the train can do serious damage ( we’ve wiped out ground signals for example ) 

 

secondly we have signal interlocking , ie we replicate the prototype mechanical interlocking electrically , to do this we have to certain implement track circuits , this requires a feedback system and can’t really be done solely within DCC . 

 

Then we ise the feedback sustem to report diagnostics on the baseboards , like DCC shorts , overloads and current consumption of the accessory power bus . With 20 baseboards we need a system to help isolate faults. 

 

We we also use a layout bus , for its primary advantage which is to reduce all the points (40) , running signals ( 10) and ground signals (14) wiring , because otherwise we’d have bundles the size of your arm running around the layout. ( take a look at tony mills adavoyle) to see what I mean ) 

 

layout busses are very useful when justified , so much so the NMRA just released a spec for one. 

[Junctionmad]

22 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Sorry, but an hour and a half with a meter on a 4MT  left me scratching my head, and wondering if I exuded a negative force field...

Seriously mate , it’s a connector with wires , it’s not magic , meter out every wire in the socket , then meter out the blanking  plug 

 

the fault will be a Homer Simpson moment 

[Chris M]

50 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

This is what annoys me about the DC versus DCC debate , this is a false truth being promoted as truth and it’s a big lie . ( see current political debates for similar stuff ) 

 

DCC allows you to move locos around your layout with the freedom of the protypes , locos can be stopped and parked anywhere , movements can take place with other locos on the same track section 

 

for example station pilot operations , attaching and detaching double headers and bankers , attaching or removing  stock at the end of trains , stabling locos close together , like the real thing 

 

yes , a complex sectioned DC layout CAN APPROACH , certain aspects of that prototype like freedom of movement , but only in a certain geographical area of the trackwork, where the isolation breaks and section feed breaks have to be carefully positioned to enable the move. If loco or train sits outside that section or straddles two sections , tough , you can’t perform the move in DC 

 

however ,in DC ,  where any sort of reasonably complex trackwork is involved , to achieve certain levels of loco movement can result in miles of wiring , interlocked sections and what not.  You only have to look at how DC cab control gets real complex real fast to see the issues , DCC has no additional complexity no matter how many locos you wish to control and where 

 

instrinsically ,  dcc drives the loco from its cab , DC CAN NEVER do this , it’s just not technically possible 

 

hence , while DC operation on a circle of track on your sitting room floor , may be similar to the same thing with DCC l it’s simply a false premise to put forward as a general comment. 

 

Dave 

So I'm not allowed to have a different opinion to you. I respect others views and would ask for the same courtesy.

I don't like the suggestion that my layouts are nothing more than a circle of track on a carpet. In fact one of them is end to end and not a circle at all 

Edited February 24, 2019 by Chris M
Spellimg