Wright writes.....

[Memphis32]

Though it's not a great analogy, if all one does is commission models, isn't that like sitting by a river alongside a good fisherman and then taking home what he's caught? I know not all have the necessary skills, but surely railway modelling (or at least it is to me) is about personally making/modifying things, not just buying/commissioning things?

Is that not the same as saying that music is about making it and not just listening to it, or enjoying good food shouldn't be done in a restaurant?

[The Fatadder]

Good Evening Tony,

 

I just wanted to post and say how much I have enjoyed watching your kit building and painting video's. So far it has left me wanting to get on with doing some painting, and to think about buying a bow pen (though I have a suspicion the dyspraxia might get in the way of getting the results I want, I won't find out without trying.) The first section of the kit building video watched on today's flight out to Sevilla has even left me thinking about having another go at white metal soldering (which for some reason dispite being ok soldering brass I could never get the hang of.)

 

Very inspiring stuff!

[t-b-g]

My experience of DCC has been interesting to say the least. I had a Digitrax system, and my son fancied the layout being controlled from a pc fitted with a touch screen. He found a monitor and touch screen on eBay, so we talked about how to make it work. I found it fascinating as to how the different systems operated. Thank goodness that I was a member of MERG otherwise I wouldn't have met Geoff Brewin who was also a member but wanted a different operating system. Any way, back to MERG. Tim (aforementioned son) built me a controller, booster, handset and point modules, so now I had the whole kit and caboodle to link to a pc. 

 

The end result was that I could set a route by tapping on a screen which meant that one could behave like a signaller, then get hold of the hand controller and become a train driver. I found the whole setting up challenging, but isn't that what a hobby is all about?

 

I have learnt a lot and had to scrap the layout, so I am determined to include the MERG DCC set up, and might even have a dabble with automatic control. I wouldn't even dream of trying that with dc.

 

I think what I am leading to is that dcc is much more than controlling locos or having to use a keypad to change a point.

 

I don't think that signalmen set routes by tapping on a screen in 1907, so I prefer a nice old fashioned lever frame. To use a favourite phrase of a good friend, it is much more "touchy-feely" pulling levers.

 

As for a layout that could be switched on and work automatically, I can't think of anything more boring if you are like me and enjoy operating. It would be all well and good if you just wanted to sit and watch trains but that is not for me.

 

But I would never dream of telling others what they should or shouldn't do. I only ever say what I have done or prefer to do and perhaps give a reason why I have chosen that method.

[mullie]

I've been using DCC for around thirteen years without any real problems. I've hard wired decoders as well as using DCC ready locos and I started at a time when we were often told you couldn't use DCC with live frog and especially hand built point work, I ignored that! I don't use DCC for point or signal control.

 

The only real problems I've had has been with DCC fitted Bachman 4mts with which there was a known problem. Via some online research I tweaked the CVs to stop the surging some years ago and they have run well for years.

 

It may not be better than DC, it is just a different way of doing things.

 

I don't like sound,  the locos on my layout won't ever have accurate sound files because most were never preserved so real recordings aren't available. If you listen to a railway, the loco sound is a tiny part of the noise, there is also the noise the rolling stock makes as it moves, all in varying circumstances and the ambient noise of the surroundings. In my view, the speakers don't deliver enough punch but that is a personal opinion and every one should do what they feel is right for them and what gives them pleasure.

 

I don't like generic sound, if I want to listen to jazz I don't look for a jazz album I will search for a specific album by a specific artist, even a compilation will feature certain styles or artists.

 

Like I said, a personal view.

 

Martyn

Edited March 6, 2017 by mullie

[The Johnster]

My take on the DC/DCC debate is that it's horses for courses. On my tiny blt, 4 turnouts apart from the fiddle yard, with 5 trains in operation, the expense and bother of DCC is absolutely pointless in terms of operation, and arguably on a roundy roundy like LB as well, which leaves Tony to concentrate on accurate trains run accurately through an accurate scene; the layout is a masterpiece.  But consider something like Borchester Market, another masterpiece.  In order to achieve the phenomenal ballet of trains moving in synchronisation with each other across that wonderful station throat a large team of highly trained and disciplined operators is necessary, and it is arguable that a layout of that complexity operated by DCC might be able to function in just as complex a way with less operators needing less training and experience.  I am not, please understand dear readers, suggesting the conversion of Frank Dyer's Opus Magnus to DCC*, that would be sacrilege, but pointing out that, were anyone to attempt to devise a terminus of such complexity of operation as a new project, I can see why DCC would be up for consideration.

 

Much has been said about reliability and complexity with regard to both systems, one of which requires a rat's nest below the baseboard and the other of which seems to require an understanding of programming if it won't work the way it's supposed to, which it inevitably sometimes won't.  Good running depends on maintaining the best interface possible between the track, wheels, and pickups irrespective of which system is used, and route setting is arguably just as complicated and requires just as much discipline in either system, except that the user interfaces are different.  A well designed and carefully built system properly operated will work well whatever the basic technology behind it, and a badly designed and built one badly operated won't.

 

As for sound, not for me thank you very much until somebody invents a speaker small enough to fit on the right part of the loco and still give a dynamic performance of at least 20hz-20Khz at a suitable volume, which of course can't be done...  I cannot abide silly tinny squawky little loudspeakers, which is strange as I quite like Bjork.

 

Can't help agreeing with some of the comments about running on exhibition layouts, though; the loco that runs around and simply barges back on to it's stock shoving it unceremoniously up the platform and then sets off into the wide blue yonder with no time to even suggest a brake continuity test is just one of my pet exhibition hates!  So is the modern image loco with a train attached to it running along with two overbright tail lamps lit and lasering holes in the train's leading vehicle!  One cannot expect all operators to be professional railwaymen with the sort of knowledge which that implies, but a bit of basic training is not too much to ask, surely, especially as observation of real railways is not unpleasant for railway enthusiasts and wiil show you the basics easily enough.  I can forgive younger operators making mistakes on steam outline layouts a bit more easily, but only a bit; the information isn't covered by the Official Secrets Act...

 

I think the point I'm making in my awkward and rambling way is that it is just as possible to operate a DCC layout badly as a DC one!

 

 

*It's already undergone the transition from stud contact to two rail.

Edited March 6, 2017 by The Johnster

[Headstock]

I've painted a wagon, bit boring really, but there you go. No chips I'm afraid, however, It does make a slight wooshing noise if put it on an incline.

[Guest Brighton_JunctionLNER]

Thanks Graeme,

 

I hadn't noticed, but that rake (if it's still the same make-up) will have subsequently gone round dozens of times since the filming. 

 

Speaking of derailments, I had one today. I'm building another A4 and was showing it off to a friend. I turned up the juice as it romped round (in part-built form) on 12 bogies, when the bogie jumped off on a trailing slip. I investigated, tweaked the pivot, checked the back-to-back, and she's gone round a further 20 times without any trouble. What it proved is the 'wisdom' of thoroughly testing a loco when it's still under construction, at every stage. 

well bu**er me, it's true.

 

i blame DC for that cock up   

Edited March 7, 2017 by Brighton_JunctionLNER

[Michael Edge]

I watch trains go by, I perform shunting, I have two complex locosheds; I have multiple controllers that are assigned to specific areas and so fault finding has not been a problem.

Whether DC or DCC, I suspect that it is about designing control systems that reflect the intended use of the layout.

I agree that one cannot say that one way is better than another, but one can certainly have a preference and for me, DC works fine; as I said, "each to his own".

 

Tony

 

Herculaneum dock is part DC (the BR part) and part DCC (the dock system and the overhead), the running and shunting is performed in exactly the same manner on each. The dock system is an unsignalled railway so DCC allows more freedom in where to run and park locos, on the mainline railway part section switches keep the trains apart in much the same way as signals do. In the loco shed I use short sections as Clive suggested. I have incidentally experienced all the troubles t-b-g and TW have encountered with DCC, often without ever finding any satisfactory explanation, the operating team usually refer to the DCC as "witchcraft". 

[Richard E]

DC vs DCC is interesting. I've run DC in the past and been frustrated to a little extent by having to 'park' loco's in specific spots.

 

For my planned venture I'm going to run DCC. I've got a small test track set up and the same loco (RTR in N) on DCC is just worlds away from running on DC, DCC is so much better.

 

As has been said though it is horses for courses and I respect that.

 

And a small aside - had a nice pint in the Willoughby Arms last night, tonight is another pub alongside the ECML, The Admiral Wells at Holme for a quiz ....

[Barry O]

Guaranteed no fiddling. It is a private layout with one careful owner and one helper (me!). It was me giving Flying Scotsman its new number, taking the loco new from the box. I could give it a number, read the number and then get the "Central memory full" error message when I tried to enter the number into the stack on a controller.

 

We had the same problem with a GWR King, number 6011. It seems that trying numbers with 6s and 0s and 1s is what upset it as it is happy with anything else. We ended up calling that 0011, despite the fact that the decoder was clearly marked as being set up to accept a 4 digit code.The layout owner knows enough to select and run a loco but wouldn't dream of touching anything else. The double heading problem happened overnight from the layout being switched off with all OK one evening to switching it on again in the morning. Can any DCC system be "fiddled" to allow a loco to suddenly run at full speed for a few moments without touching the controller? If there was the slightest possibility of there being any rational explanation for the problems, I would have investigated and sorted them out. I just don't know where to start investigating faults that people tell me can't happen.

 

The best explanation I have had from a top DCC expert is "It sounds like software glitches". It is a Lenz base unit with updated software and modern Lenz controllers. The decoders are from a variety of manufacturers. 

 

I have had a problem setting up 10000 and 10001 but that has been sorted. It would appear this only happens with certain dcc chips.

 

The loco shooting off on its own at high speed could be due to a big DC spike when switching on the layout (through a faulty point motor/point operating system). Set the dcc chip so that it won't operate on DC - which appears to fix it.

 

Baz

[t-b-g]

I have had a problem setting up 10000 and 10001 but that has been sorted. It would appear this only happens with certain dcc chips.

 

The loco shooting off on its own at high speed could be due to a big DC spike when switching on the layout (through a faulty point motor/point operating system). Set the dcc chip so that it won't operate on DC - which appears to fix it.

 

Baz

 

It happens, not when the layout is switched on but during normal running. You set of a loco at a nice sensible speed and it runs like that for so long, then takes off, then slows down.

 

As for setting the chip to not work on DC, I don't have a clue. If I can do it with a big hammer, I will have a go. If it involves altering CVs with a handset with English as a language and a book that shows me all the screen shot read outs in German, forget it!

 

If some chips work with some systems and not others, then that is a serious flaw in the whole DCC concept unless people are given proper information when they purchase things. 

[gr.king]

I cannot envisage an operational need for costly and "beyond simple comprehension" DCC on any layout that I am ever likely to build, and I have no fascination with thin, inappropriately timed artificial sounds or with lights that don't quite look like or do the prototypical thing, so I see no point in spending money on what would simply be a gimmick in my circumstances.

 

I realize that a number of modellers keep professional model painters busy by passing on their carefully (and not so carefully) built models for the nearest thing there is to a perfect finish, but that's another form of expenditure that I cannot justify. I don't really see how the model is "yours" in the proper sense if almost the whole of what you can see is actually the result of somebody else's handiwork, i.e. the decoration. Isn't a large part of the final satisfaction with a model attributable to the fact that all, or as much as possible of it, is your own work? I think there's also a good chance that if you have only some of your "best" or most difficult locos and other items professionally painted because you can't afford (or can't wait) to have them all done that way, then those you've finished yourself may be made to look un-necessarily poor by comparison. A uniform quality of finish, at the best level you can achieve, might result in more satisfaction overall.

 

It's not directly related to the main topics, but I received a quarterly journal from one of the railway-interest societies last week. It contained a picture of a beautifully painted model loco and mentioned the name of the painter. I'm not really sure how pleased the painter would be to have his work thus advertised, as the model itself had some highly visible faults: frames above the running plate not actually in contact with the running plate on one side, sitting lop-sided beneath the smokebox, distinctive curves in the handrails round the smokebox not formed to a convincing shape, boiler handrails not straight where they should be straight, line of the slidebars and piston rod angled down well-below the centre of the driving axle, dome also looking distorted or lop-sided (not sure if it was a bad casting, poor fitting or just strange perspective in the image), and chimney possibly a bit jaunty too - maybe because the somebox couldn't sit level on the badly fitted frames? Even if all of the paintwork was gleaming and glossy like freshly dipped toffee-apple, with dead-straight edges to all colours and perfect lining, I don't see how it made the defective model anything to shout about.......

Edited March 7, 2017 by gr.king

[coachmann]

Almost all the reasons given for not adopting DCC are based on incorrect assumptions and a total lack of understanding of what DCC is about. Which is probably why the longest posts come from people who don't have DCC. 

[APOLLO]

No DCC for me, to fiddly, besides I've too many locos to justify the expense, and I like my control panel(s)- they work wonderfully !!

 

Switch on the mains and away we go - simple.

 

 

And who needs sound with growling Lima diesels !!!!!!

 

Brit15

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Almost all the reasons given for not adopting DCC are based on incorrect assumptions and a total lack of understanding of what DCC is about. Which is probably why the longest posts come from people who don't have DCC. 

So what is DCC about then?

 

I'd suggest it is different things to different people. For some it's a way to enhance already well made and running locos, provide remote uncoupling and - mainly for diesel locos - providing sound and lighting. For others, it's perceived as a fix for their poor running locos which they don't know how to sort out. Others enjoy being on the leading edge of technology, so they can control their models (usually off the shelf RTR) with their mobile phones. That I don't understand, as I said to the young lady at the Nespresso sales stand in the local John Lewis, when she tried to extol the benefits of controlling a coffee machine with a mobile phone "app". Most of the layouts I have seen at shows with DCC seem to require a level of extra concentration from operators which doesn't help.

 

I don't use DCC, preferring to avoid the complications it puts in front of the operators on the exhibition layout I have. I have also found that, by careful construction, matching motors and gears, and good quality controllers, we get very good running, which would probably only be marginally improved with DCC. I should also add that when I started building my current collection (a slow process to produce a small fleet, probably considered as risible by today's 100+ loco collectors) small DCC chips to fit 4mm pre-group locos were not readily available and expensive, which was another deterrent.

 

If DCC works for you, then that's good. At present I don't think the benefits I would get would be worth the cost, work and inconvenience of converting. I know quite a few model builders that hold the same view

 

Jol

[Focalplane]

As an avid model locomotive builder I would now not consider running any of them on DC beyond a good running in period, first on a rolling road then by visiting a club with a large oval test track.  Only then do I fit the DCC sound chip and speaker.

 

So my locos already run well on DC and only run better when on DCC - mainly in the realm of very slow running, which I happen to think more important and satisfying than pure high speed, but also in the settings of momentum, etc. which works particularly well with Gauge O motors having bevel gears.

 

Sound, to me, makes the locos come alive (an observation which I always thought steam engines conveyed rather well).  But it is, and should be, horses for courses among these many pages that are devoted to the subject from time to time.

[thegreenhowards]

One more opinion on the analogue vs digital debate. I went DCC a couple of years ago and have enjoyed the process of chipping my locos. Also, it's certainly meant wiring my new layout is much easier. Having said that, for a 'roundy roundy' layout like Little Bytham (and mine in the main), the benefits are limited, but on any layout with significant amounts of shunting, I think you'd be mad to start out in DC today. Although obviously, if you've already built a DC layout with a large stable of locos that's a different matter.

 

I don't think the running is significantly better or worse. Some locos definitely perform better at very low speed on DCC, while others have a significantly lower top speed which can be annoying (if more realistic!). I find stayalive capacitors useful on short wheelbase locos, particularly on dead frogs (I know I shouldn't have any, but I will until Peco do electrofrog slips in code 100). I have had one motor blow out (on Little Bytham as catalogued on this forum before), but I think this was due to the significantly more than 12V in Tony's wires! I never had this sort of problem when running DCC locos on DCC layouts. I have never experienced any problems such as random movements, or refusing to accept addresses. I find that if one follows the instructions, the system behaves well, but I use NCE, which I suspect is more stable than some other systems.

 

For me the clincher is sound, particularly diesel sound. Yes, it can get annoying, but it really brings the models to life, and makes the operation much more fun. Listening to the Napiers fire up on my namesake is heaven!

 

Having said this, each to his own.

 

Andy

 

PS RMWeb 'ate' my first attempt at responding to this debate last night when I tried to add emoticons. I wonder whether it's DC or DCC powered!!!

[60526]

"For me the clincher is sound"

Each to their own, but I've no interest in sound, at the moment, apart from the cost and sometimes having to think twice if the sound coming from that model is exactly what I remember, I was operating a layout at an exhibition a couple of years ago and next to us was a stand selling sound chips etc. This guy came along and had a chip fitted into his Bmann Peak, I think he had pre-ordered it. It was then run up and down for a test and the guy seemed very please, but, it wasn't the sound of a Peak. It was explained that recordings were made at various events around the Country, this got us thinking, there is a Peak on a preserved railway that has a Brush type 4 engine in it, I think it is a class 45. Anyhow, he paid well over £100 for this. Aside from this, I think that all the other chipped diesels we heard were very good, especially a Deltic doing a short light engine acceleration spurt as if it was coming off the buffers on platform 10 at the cross looking to go back to FP.

[Tony Wright]

Is that not the same as saying that music is about making it and not just listening to it, or enjoying good food shouldn't be done in a restaurant?

I did say it wasn't a good analogy..............

 

My point, if poorly made, is that railway modelling is a constructional hobby (at least to me). Thus, in my view, to be a full-participant, one should be prepared to make things, however humble. 

 

If someone gets everything made for them, then they're more of a collector. They're interested in model railways, but they're not modellers.

 

With regard to music, I enjoy some types, but I'm no musician. I thus don't claim to be.

 

I'm not a cook (or should that be chef?) either, but I, obviously, eat (my wife is a wonderful cook). I don't write about the music I've got nor the food I eat.

 

We can all enjoy things without being the 'creator' of what we enjoy. However, and, as always, this is a personal point of view, how can one really enjoy a constructional hobby without actively participating in constructing anything? Surely that's the whole point.

 

One can take 'pride' in a possession; I have a dangerously fast car. I drive it, though everything about its well-being is taken care of by someone else. I thus, only drive it. I do not participate in rallies nor show it at events, and I certainly don't write about it in the appropriate journals. It's only my possession; a very enjoyable one, nonetheless. My elder son rebuilds classic cars as a hobby. He has several on the go. However, they're much, much more than possessions. When finished, they'll be largely his personal 'creations' or restorations.

 

Returning to making things in railway modelling; you might not know that I have a succession of visitors, to whom I give one-to-one tuition on making locos. I regard this as 'putting my money where my mouth is'. I don't charge for this, but those I teach make donations to charities of their choice. I neither ask how much nor to where it goes - I just know it happens. My teaching is not altruistic, because by helping others I've helped myself out of a very dark period in my life. Why do I have so many to help? Not so much because I'm any good but because these guys (and it's been guys so far) want to make things for themselves. They do not wish to be RTR-reliant or beholden to folk who do all their modelling for them. They wish to be self-reliant in their modelling (and I stress modelling as a verb).

 

How have I done so far? Just one failure among dozens, so not bad. I accept the responsibility for the failure and the guy just carries on having models made for him. That is his right. 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

I cannot envisage an operational need for costly and "beyond simple comprehension" DCC on any layout that I am ever likely to build, and I have no fascination with thin, inappropriately timed artificial sounds or with lights that don't quite look like or do the prototypical thing, so I see no point in spending money on what would simply be a gimmick in my circumstances.

 

I realize that a number of modellers keep professional model painters busy by passing on their carefully (and not so carefully) built models for the nearest thing there is to a perfect finish, but that's another form of expenditure that I cannot justify. I don't really see how the model is "yours" in the proper sense if almost the whole of what you can see is actually the result of somebody else's handiwork, i.e. the decoration. Isn't a large part of the final satisfaction with a model attributable to the fact that all, or as much as possible of it, is your own work? I think there's also a good chance that if you have only some of your "best" or most difficult locos and other items professionally painted because you can't afford (or can't wait) to have them all done that way, then those you've finished yourself may be made to look un-necessarily poor by comparison. A uniform quality of finish, at the best level you can achieve, might result in more satisfaction overall.

 

It's not directly related to the main topics, but I received a quarterly journal from one of the railway-interest societies last week. It contained a picture of a beautifully painted model loco and mentioned the name of the painter. I'm not really sure how pleased the painter would be to have his work thus advertised, as the model itself had some highly visible faults: frames above the running plate not actually in contact with the running plate on one side, sitting lop-sided beneath the smokebox, distinctive curves in the handrails round the smokebox not formed to a convincing shape, boiler handrails not straight where they should be straight, line of the slidebars and piston rod angled down well-below the centre of the driving axle, dome also looking distorted or lop-sided (not sure if it was a bad casting, poor fitting or just strange perspective in the image), and chimney possibly a bit jaunty too - maybe because the somebox couldn't sit level on the badly fitted frames? Even if all of the paintwork was gleaming and glossy like freshly dipped toffee-apple, with dead-straight edges to all colours and perfect lining, I don't see how it made the defective model anything to shout about.......

Interesting points, Graeme. 

 

I understand how you can believe a model to be 'not yours' by just looking at the beautiful painting of a professional. However, the paint, however good (or bad) will not influence the loco's performance (unless the whole thing has been dipped in paint!). When a loco I've made romps round on 14 bogies without fuss or failure, I know it's 'mine'. 

[Tony Wright]

Almost all the reasons given for not adopting DCC are based on incorrect assumptions and a total lack of understanding of what DCC is about. Which is probably why the longest posts come from people who don't have DCC. 

I'll keep this short, Larry. 

 

DCC baffles me; perhaps, more importantly, faults I've found with DCC (and I'm not alone) are way beyond my ability to solve. They are totally inexplicable (I know I'm dim). 

 

Yesterday, once the chip was removed from a friend's locomotive (after it fried), I was able to hunt down all the problems for its not working properly, and solve them. With DCC on board, that was impossible. 

 

My observations of DCC faults are not assumptive, they are empirical. 

[Focalplane]

Re sound on DCC.  As several of us have found out, not all sound sets are correct for the locomotives specified.  Coachmann and I have had a long discussion about what the sound should be for a 3 cylinder LMS Compound.  We both know that the sound should be very similar to a simple two cylinder locomotive as the low pressure cylinders are cranked at 90º and there is no "chuff" from the high pressure cylinder.  Also, when starting, the Deeley designed compounding system actually starts out as a two cylinder simple before bringing into play the high pressure cylinder.  So a very close approximation would be a LMS two cylinder design like the 4F, with the appropriate whistle, etc.

 

But one sound set advertised for the Compound was described to me as being a three cylinder sound cobbled up from several recordings of other locomotive classes, one of which was not even an LMS loco!  My advice is to entertain a discussion with the company selling the sound set and making a decision based on their answers; also use RMWeb to assist in making a good decision.  Several of us have posted short videos of our results so far.  I intend to make more (one of these days!)

 

Someone mentioned the lack of sound from coaches or wagons.  I think it is quite possible that this will come in time, but whether the click-clack will be timed to track joins may have to wait a while longer!

[grahame]

Almost all the reasons given for not adopting DCC are based on incorrect assumptions and a total lack of understanding of what DCC is about. Which is probably why the longest posts come from people who don't have DCC.

 

I choose not to use DCC and I have my reasons for that. I won't bore people with a lengthy explanation of them but they are not based on assumptions. I have a basic understanding of DCC, although not an in depth knowledge of the workings and software (and I doubt that many users do).

 

Each to his or her own for their choice of model railway control - the decision is not a competition about which is best and to be won. My choice doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the hobby.

 

G

[Clearwater]

I think Jol touches on an interesting point. There's a degree of the 'box opening' debate about DCC. Some plug and play and have no idea how it works to the extent of not being able to fit chips. Others, still may not understand how the high end electronics work (e.g. Can't build a circuit board or code a programme) but are still prepared to 'model' and exploit the technology to its maximum. In the same way, you don't need to understand sub molecular solid state physical chemistry about how the metallic elements bond to be able to solder. To me DCC is another branch of the hobby that allows some people to do ever more extraordinary things in the same way other people excel in e.g. Building construction

 

David

[LNER4479]

I normally enjoy just reading the counter arguments on the DC vs DCC debate (or any other of the regular topics that crop up - OO vs P4, Gresley vs Thompson, etc) so it is with some trepidation that I make a post like this, but here goes...

 

Grantham is staunchly DC and will stay that way. It is wired up so as to closely replicate as possible the traditional signalling arrangements of the era (1930's), meaning that, in the signalled area of the layout, each track section corresponds to a signalling section. This replicates one of the basic rules of traditional block signalling - a maximum of one train in any one section at any time. That has required more wiring than DCC.

 

The points and signalling are interlocked and, across the junctions, switch polarity and connect intermediate sections together. Probably no more or less wiring than DCC to create the same effect.

 

As well as the roundy-roundy trains, there are considerable shunting moves undertaken around the station area. To undertake move, set switches (not required in DCC), set route (required in DCC), set signals (required in DCC) and turn controller - loco (or train) moves. On DCC I would still be tapping the loco number into the controller. Some moves require two or three different locos to move in quick succession. I'm now well ahead of DCC as I'm not having to constantly change the number of the loco in the controller (with the inherent risk that I enter the wrong number and a different loco starts to move somewhere else around the layout).

 

For exhibitions, we have well over 100 locos we can call on (they don't all come with us to every show, I hasten to add!), supplied by at least 5 different owners (which would thus all have to be chipped and 'talk' to whichever DCC control system I'd chosen to use)

 

Finally, the above-described system is designed around prototypical train operations which is what the trains on Grantham (by and large) do, ie replicate prototypical operation. With DCC, I could cheerfully have two locos in the same section, heading towards each other - what's prototypical about that? That having been said, we do replicate one move during the sequence whereby a relieved loco off an 'Up' train follows a departing 'Down' train out of the platform (as allowed by local signalling instructions), before coming gradually to a stand at the home signal whilst the main train accelerates away to the north. All done on DC through the flick of one switch and the returning to danger of one signal (thereafter, independent control of the respective locos is no different DC or DCC).

 

As others have said - and I freely acknowledge - each to their own and there is much to commend DCC, depending on your application. But I'm quite happy as I am, thank you. And I don't consider myself to be a Luddite. I have no interest in replicating the railway of today in miniature form, nor of using touch pads or apps; it's the pre-1968 steam era for me. And the system as described much better replicates 'how it used to be' in terms of how such a railway is operated including the 'tactile' feel of operating point and signal levers.

Edited March 7, 2017 by LNER4479