Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

Hi all

 

Since I met Tony recently in Glasgow I've been pondering something he said about running trains at proper - that is, appropriate - speeds on Little Bytham. And, as a result, I think I've formulated a modelling 'rule'.

 

I call it 'The Modeller's Law of Inverse Prestige'. My thinking is this. Big express engines, at the head of big express trains, will, when running at express speeds, flash past a viewer. The impression of a train at speed is the crucial thing being modelled; this is (to me) why good running is such a prime attribute and why P4 frequently makes for excellent dioramas but poor models. On the other hand, humble goods locos, shunters and other slow-movers will dawdle their way past a viewer. Therefore, since these less-iconic engines are in view for longer, they must be modelled and finished to a higher standard. The more prestigious the engine and stock, the less likely it is to be studied, and therefore the concentration of modelling resources must be afforded to the less glamorous items.

 

Who's with me, and who thinks I'm well down the road of arrant nonsense?

 

Gavin

 

I can't agree with this I'm afraid. The only strategy that I would approve of, is that everything should be produced to a consistent standard be it the humble pickup up goods or the fastest express on the line. Under your 'law of inverse prestige', it would be impossible to use a bigger express locomotive on a slower moving train such as a semi-fitted freight because its lack of quality would suddenly become apparent.

[t-b-g]

Hi all

 

Since I met Tony recently in Glasgow I've been pondering something he said about running trains at proper - that is, appropriate - speeds on Little Bytham. And, as a result, I think I've formulated a modelling 'rule'.

 

I call it 'The Modeller's Law of Inverse Prestige'. My thinking is this. Big express engines, at the head of big express trains, will, when running at express speeds, flash past a viewer. The impression of a train at speed is the crucial thing being modelled; this is (to me) why good running is such a prime attribute and why P4 frequently makes for excellent dioramas but poor models. On the other hand, humble goods locos, shunters and other slow-movers will dawdle their way past a viewer. Therefore, since these less-iconic engines are in view for longer, they must be modelled and finished to a higher standard. The more prestigious the engine and stock, the less likely it is to be studied, and therefore the concentration of modelling resources must be afforded to the less glamorous items.

 

Who's with me, and who thinks I'm well down the road of arrant nonsense?

 

Gavin

 

I have often thought the same. On a layout like Little Bytham, or anything similar, like Stoke Summit, Charwelton or Retford, you can have any number of superb, finely detailed locos that spend 99% of their time in a fiddle yard. They tear round the layout at a scale speed appropriate to an express and are gone. So they are on show for less than a minute. Were they RTR, did they have the right sort of wheels, or did they even have brakes modelled? Only a still photo will tell you.

 

Yet the ancient 0-6-0 that brings round the pick up goods and potters about for a while in the yard is visible for maybe 20 times longer.

 

It is one of the reasons I have always preferred a terminus station as a model. You get to see the star loco backing off shed onto the train, it can stay at the platform end for a while and then it gets the signal and off she goes, accelerating away. When she returns later in the sequence, the pilot removes the stock and your star loco backs onto the shed and stays there, on view, even doing a flashy, show off spin on the turntable. Your stock can either stay in the platform or go to a carriage siding but it can stay on view to be admired in detail. Of course you can't just set a train running and watch it go round and round but the properly operated layouts don't have that sort of thing anyway.

[LBRJ]

Isn't the above really the concept of "The Layout Loco"?

Something that is good, but only good enough to stand scrutiny at a distance and at some speed.

 

Surely the simple way around different types of traction substitution on slower trains, is to have some discipline and arrange the locomotive roster to suit.

[Headstock]

I can't see Tony deliberately compromising the build quality of his A4's ect just because they are required to go fast.

[The Johnster]

Well, they're only A4s, all the detail is hidden by the streamlining...*

 

I wouldn't personally model a roundyroundy set up like LB, because my personal preference is for operation, which means shunting and running around.  So, by default, I wall always go for termini or junctions with bay platforms and sidings for the branch line exchange traffic.  It would bother me that expresses running through at speed would not give me the opportunity to look at the locos, or the coaches, or the passengers tucking into high tea in the dining car.  

 

But I am not Tony, and my different outlook does not prevent me from being in awe of the LB project in terms of it's scope and approach, a denial of the shibboleth that you can't realistically model a main line though station in 4mm because it takes up too much space and there is just too much detail for you to keep up with it.  But I cannot agree with the Modeller's Law Of Inverse Prestige, although I see where you are coming from, Gavin.  If you abandon the concept of having everything to a consistent standard, you are at the top of a very slippery slope.  Even if your standard is quite a low one (mine is mostly rtr stock, Peco code 100, Insulfrog turnouts, and tension lock couplers; hardly a fine scale approach), the fact that it is consistent prevents attention being drawn to any particularly obvious bad points, and the overall impression becomes more apparently realistic and acceptable.  

 

Once you have defined your standards and are comfortable working to them, human nature demands that you attempt to improve on them, possibly to the point of a major upgrade though I think I might be a bit too old, rheumy-eyed, and wobbly handed for that now.  I attempt to model the best I can within my low-fidelity comfort zone, painting the sides of my rails, weathering and detailing stock, operating as prototypically as I can, running at reasonable speeds. having imaginary reasons for certain types of traffic, trying to get scenery and buildings right, signalling moves properly, trying to improve whenever I can.  The last thing I want to do is make a poorer model than I am capable of, no matter how much time it spends on the layout!  There is, IMHO, no point at all in making a model. or finishing an rtr one, to anything less than the best you can do; it will constantly bother you and you will eventually have to do it again, properly or whatever approximation you can make of 'properly'.

 

This is a hobby, pursued for pleasure and satisfaction.  Where's the satisfaction in doing it badly?

 

 

* This comment may not actually fully reflect my opinion on the matter, and might even be untrue...

Edited March 9, 2017 by The Johnster

[wagonbasher]

I have often thought the same. On a layout like Little Bytham, or anything similar, like Stoke Summit, Charwelton or Retford, you can have any number of superb, finely detailed locos that spend 99% of their time in a fiddle yard. They tear round the layout at a scale speed appropriate to an express and are gone. So they are on show for less than a minute. Were they RTR, did they have the right sort of wheels, or did they even have brakes modelled? Only a still photo will tell you.

 

Yet the ancient 0-6-0 that brings round the pick up goods and potters about for a while in the yard is visible for maybe 20 times longer.

 

It is one of the reasons I have always preferred a terminus station as a model. You get to see the star loco backing off shed onto the train, it can stay at the platform end for a while and then it gets the signal and off she goes, accelerating away. When she returns later in the sequence, the pilot removes the stock and your star loco backs onto the shed and stays there, on view, even doing a flashy, show off spin on the turntable. Your stock can either stay in the platform or go to a carriage siding but it can stay on view to be admired in detail. Of course you can't just set a train running and watch it go round and round but the properly operated layouts don't have that sort of thing anyway.

Railways and their operations come in all shapes and sizes, thank goodness our tastes are different and folk are modelling all of the various types.

 

Andy

[Enterprisingwestern]

Stick a p way restriction on the main lines, and, voila, time to savour the express locomotives.

Even I worked that one out!

 

Mike.

[The Johnster]

Stick a p way restriction on the main lines, and, voila, time to savour the express locomotives.

Even I worked that one out!

 

Mike.

 

And single line working would satisfy my requirement for more operation.  But, in principle, it is better to model the everyday and mundane than an out of course type of working, in my view.

[t-b-g]

Railways and their operations come in all shapes and sizes, thank goodness our tastes are different and folk are modelling all of the various types.

 

Andy

 

Absolutely. Which is why I expressed my views as my personal preferences rather than something that we should all do.

 

I have had the great pleasure of operating some "big name" layouts over the years, of all types. The two biggest crowds I have ever had round a layout at shows were with Leighton Buzzard the first time we took it out and with "Gresley Beat". You couldn't get two more different styles of layout.

 

To me, one is a layout designed for operation, the other is designed for running trains. Having a layout at home that is so intricate and interesting to operate that I have friends round twice a week for a 3 hour session is a lovely part of the hobby for me. If I had a Gresley Beat at home rather than Buckingham, I am not sure that we would be enjoying those sessions and still be finding new ways of carrying out moves after 4 years as I know that it would not hold our interest over that much operating.

 

I have friends who enjoy all aspects of the hobby, from collecting Hornby Dublo to scratchbuilding everything. Some enjoy operating and some do not. As long as they are enjoying themselves, that is all that matters.

[The Johnster]

For the most part I hate DCC sound.  Steam locos especially, but also diesels.  Not only is it often the wrong sound for a particular loco, but it is the wrong sound for what the loco is doing.  Note I am of the age when I actually heard steam engines at work.  However, in addition to the aforementioned there has always been something that just wasn't correct but I couldn't put my finger on what it was.  So I got the old grey matter moving (hard when it is -35C) and came up with "distance".  I assumed that a common viewing distance would be about 6' from the model that equates into about 7' if one is in helicopter mode.  That translates into about about 600' or 200 yds real distance.  Now I am not sure about how sound decays, what any angular effect there will be in the 1:1 world and I know it is not the same for all frequencies.  However, lets assume for simplicity it is linear, which I know it is not, but what I hear on the model at 7' is not what I would hear on the real thing at 600ft and I definitely would not hear the fireman putting his bacon and eggs on his shovel to make his breakfast.  So what I postulate is that sound travel is  not not a 1:76 scale and the computer, that calls itself my brain, latches on to this and says the sound is wrong.   

Also for interest I watch Ken Patterson's "Whats Neat" (an excellent free video program) and Tsunami have decoders that fit inside coaches and box cars to give the sounds of said stock.  Further at least one type can be blue tooth connected to the decoder in the loco so the coach sounds "are appropriate" to what the loco is doing.

 

 

Theaken, that is an excellent point which should have occurred to me but didn't.  I might add that the speed at which sound travels does not scale either, it is a constant which varies according to air density and pressure but is around 640mph at sea level.  To continue with your analogy of being a scale 600 feet from the model, in real life that is a sufficient distance for the sound coming from the loco to be discernably delayed as you hear it.   But you will not hear or be aware of this delay at a distance of 6 or 7 feet on the model, and this will also affect your acceptance of the illusion that is intended.

 

Decay of sound in not linear over distance either, high frequency sounds travelling further with less volume decay than low, and very slightly faster, so you might have heard the fireman's shovel scraping on the lower edge of the firehole as he put has breakfast in to cook.

 

I pointed out in an earlier post that sound on DCC locomotives is reliant of silly little tinny pointless speakers with hardly any frequency response.  Maybe the answer is to listen though headphones, but, again, proper headphones, not silly little tinny pointless 'ear buds', please...

 

I admit to making chuff chuff noises when I am operating; it helps me monitor the speed of my locos.

[Tony Wright]

Well, they're only A4s, all the detail is hidden by the streamlining...*

 

I wouldn't personally model a roundyroundy set up like LB, because my personal preference is for operation, which means shunting and running around.  So, by default, I wall always go for termini or junctions with bay platforms and sidings for the branch line exchange traffic.  It would bother me that expresses running through at speed would not give me the opportunity to look at the locos, or the coaches, or the passengers tucking into high tea in the dining car.  

 

But I am not Tony, and my different outlook does not prevent me from being in awe of the LB project in terms of it's scope and approach, a denial of the shibboleth that you can't realistically model a main line though station in 4mm because it takes up too much space and there is just too much detail for you to keep up with it.  But I cannot agree with the Modeller's Law Of Inverse Prestige, although I see where you are coming from, Gavin.  If you abandon the concept of having everything to a consistent standard, you are at the top of a very slippery slope.  Even if your standard is quite a low one (mine is mostly rtr stock, Peco code 100, Insulfrog turnouts, and tension lock couplers; hardly a fine scale approach), the fact that it is consistent prevents attention being drawn to any particularly obvious bad points, and the overall impression becomes more apparently realistic and acceptable.  

 

Once you have defined your standards and are comfortable working to them, human nature demands that you attempt to improve on them, possibly to the point of a major upgrade though I think I might be a bit too old, rheumy-eyed, and wobbly handed for that now.  I attempt to model the best I can within my low-fidelity comfort zone, painting the sides of my rails, weathering and detailing stock, operating as prototypically as I can, running at reasonable speeds. having imaginary reasons for certain types of traffic, trying to get scenery and buildings right, signalling moves properly, trying to improve whenever I can.  The last thing I want to do is make a poorer model than I am capable of, no matter how much time it spends on the layout!  There is, IMHO, no point at all in making a model. or finishing an rtr one, to anything less than the best you can do; it will constantly bother you and you will eventually have to do it again, properly or whatever approximation you can make of 'properly'.

 

This is a hobby, pursued for pleasure and satisfaction.  Where's the satisfaction in doing it badly?

 

 

* This comment may not actually fully reflect my opinion on the matter, and might even be untrue...

Thanks for your comments, Johnster. 

 

I think your point about modelling a main line prototype is the most pertinent, providing one has the space. Space to go on/off stage on the straight; space to model full-length trains without compromise; space to apply the 'rule of thirds' where (within sensible limits) no train is longer than a third of the layout's length; space to let everything 'breath' in the scenic section and enough space (particularly in fiddle yards) to lay lots of roads without squeezing too much in and compromising the running. I'm lucky, I have all those essentials; without them, LB would not 'work' at every level. Others might have tried in smaller spaces, but too much compromise (or, if you wish to be PC, selective compression) is not for me. 

 

I love Gavin's inverse law, and I can see where he's coming from to some extent. However, I'll tell a tale to illustrate part of my take on it, if I may. It's a hot day in the summer of 1958. I'm standing on small mound in a field, adjacent to the WCML just north of Hartford Station, near to the junction of the chord from Hartford and Greenbank. Behind me is the CLC from Manchester Central to Chester. I can see an 8F on heavy hoppers simmering away on the chord, and I can just read its number (though it's easier with a rich mate's binoculars). I take no notice of whether it's got any brakes but I note the star above its number (which my Ian Allan abc tells me denotes it's balanced for faster running). For many minutes, the 8F doesn't move and I give it just a casual glance from time to time. It's not a cop, anyway. I turn around in response to a clanking noise as an O4/7 heads towards Delamere on an unfitted freight running on the CLC. Its number is almost invisible beneath a coat of dirt, but no matter; it's one of Gorton's, so won't be a cop. I observe its round-topped firebox, yet it still retains its GC smokebox, though there is no rising arc of the handrail around the top of its smokebox door. Does it have brakes? I have no idea. Yet, it's going slowly enough for me to observe all sorts of things.  

 

Now, the soon-to-be-removed Up home and distant pegs on the main line are pulled off and moments later a gleaming Semi in the form of 46246 CITY OF MANCHESTER belts southwards on the Up Royal Scot. What do I notice of this? The red on the loco is different from its maroon carriages but the most striking thing is its sloping smokebox top; the last one on the previously-streamlined Semis' There are shouts of joy, for it's a cop. 

 

What does all this waffle tell me? There are certain details which stick in my mind having seen such magical sights. I cannot recall noting such things (as mentioned) like brakes or even which BR device was carried on the tenders. Thus, if I were making models of these locos, those details I've noted would have to be included, with other details taken from contemporary photographs. So, it's of no consequence to me whether a loco flashes by in moments, plods by in minutes or stands in front of me for quite some time. They, and the trains they're pulling, should all be modelled to a consistent standard.

 

I love the different approaches to modelling mentioned. Mine, as is well known, is entirely self-indulgent. Retford comes to mind, with 61208 simmering away in its siding at the north end on the Up side. It could have been any one of a few B1s belonging to Retford, but I remember this one in particular because it had the closer-together hingestraps on its smokebox door, resulting in its front numberplate being placed higher than the norm'. When I built a model of it, this detail had to be correct. Did I pay it much attention otherwise? Of course not, but within three quarters of an hour 60066 MERRY HAMPTON had gone by with the northbound morning Talisman, no less than 60022 MALLARD had gone through with the northbound Elizabethan (an EE Type 4 was on the Scotsman, but I have no idea which it was) and 60013 DOMINION OF NEW ZEALAND had raced through with the UP Tees-Tyne Pullman.Those, I paid attention to. As I'll reiterate, you can keep all your shunters and pilots pottering about, in view for hours on end, moving at a crawling pace. When I recall those (briefest of) glimpses of steam express motive power, travelling fast on long, long-distance trains, with those humble six-coupleds fussing with wagons or stock, it's like comparing (or, to me, contrasting) a full length (but not really interesting) film to a gripping 'short'.

 

Those briefest of moments - an A1 going really fast at Askham, an A3 belting past Lincoln Road 'box at Markham, an A2/2 blasting over Botany Bay Crossing, an A4 racing through Ricall or a V2 pelting through Thirsk - are what fire my own personal modelling 'ambitions'.

That I can (in a tiny, tiny way) recreate those indelible memories on LB makes it all worth while; hence my choice of scale/gauge, my need for enough space, my choice of simplicity of control and my desire to personally make my own locos and (passenger) rolling stock.

 

All the above said, each to their own.

 

Did someone mention this being a sane thread? Thank goodness there are many, many folk who post on here who are, because my sanity has been questioned on many occasions.  

Edited March 9, 2017 by Tony Wright

[trw1089]

Theaken, that is an excellent point which should have occurred to me but didn't.  I might add that the speed at which sound travels does not scale either, it is a constant which varies according to air density and pressure but is around 640mph at sea level.  To continue with your analogy of being a scale 600 feet from the model, in real life that is a sufficient distance for the sound coming from the loco to be discernably delayed as you hear it.   But you will not hear or be aware of this delay at a distance of 6 or 7 feet on the model, and this will also affect your acceptance of the illusion that is intended.

 

Decay of sound in not linear over distance either, high frequency sounds travelling further with less volume decay than low, and very slightly faster, so you might have heard the fireman's shovel scraping on the lower edge of the firehole as he put has breakfast in to cook.

 

I pointed out in an earlier post that sound on DCC locomotives is reliant of silly little tinny pointless speakers with hardly any frequency response.  Maybe the answer is to listen though headphones, but, again, proper headphones, not silly little tinny pointless 'ear buds', please...

 

I admit to making chuff chuff noises when I am operating; it helps me monitor the speed of my locos.

 

What a load of you know what.  The first thing you do with DCC sound is to turn down the volume, this makes it only audible in normal (scale) distances and is far more realistic.  Perhaps you might want to avail yourself of the latest Locoman sound chip with the prototype of your choice.  After trying many different sound chips, and also being a steam loco driver and railway sound recordist, it would have to produce the most realistic sound of any I have heard.  And as for tinny sound, you obviously haven't heard the latest speakers that are in use.

 

Frankly all this DCC vs DC and sound vs non-sound seems to be put up by those seeking excuses why they don't have it, rather than those who are experienced with both DC and DCC and the opportunities they provide.  I have modelled layouts with both DC and DCC, and I prefer DCC, my preference, so please stop with all the ill-informed comments about DCC problems when nearly every post I have read on this thread about it's problems is by people who are not familiar with it. 

 

I really appreciate seeing all the hard work and modelling skill displayed on this thread, but the arrogance of the DC vs DCC and sound vs non-sound really turns me off.  I know there are some declared luddites on this thread, I am sure I am one of them in certain aspects, but please respect the fact that we all have different preferences for modelling and it is a broad church.  Trying to forward an argument about which system is better than another, when most don't seem familiar with both sides of the argument, is just displaying arrogance.

 

Yours in modelling

Tony

[t-b-g]

What a load of you know what.  The first thing you do with DCC sound is to turn down the volume, this makes it only audible in normal (scale) distances and is far more realistic.  Perhaps you might want to avail yourself of the latest Locoman sound chip with the prototype of your choice.  After trying many different sound chips, and also being a steam loco driver and railway sound recordist, it would have to produce the most realistic sound of any I have heard.  And as for tinny sound, you obviously haven't heard the latest speakers that are in use.

 

Frankly all this DCC vs DC and sound vs non-sound seems to be put up by those seeking excuses why they don't have it, rather than those who are experienced with both DC and DCC and the opportunities they provide.  I have modelled layouts with both DC and DCC, and I prefer DCC, my preference, so please stop with all the ill-informed comments about DCC problems when nearly every post I have read on this thread about it's problems is by people who are not familiar with it. 

 

I really appreciate seeing all the hard work and modelling skill displayed on this thread, but the arrogance of the DC vs DCC and sound vs non-sound really turns me off.  I know there are some declared luddites on this thread, I am sure I am one of them in certain aspects, but please respect the fact that we all have different preferences for modelling and it is a broad church.  Trying to forward an argument about which system is better than another, when most don't seem familiar with both sides of the argument, is just displaying arrogance.

 

Yours in modelling

Tony

 

Where does that leave those who have tried both, who are involved with layouts that have both and yet still prefer DC?

 

Are we arrogant and ill informed too?

 

I am sorry but this thread has been conducted in a very polite and well thought out way. We really don't need it to descend into using those sorts of terms.

 

If you like DCC with sound, by all means explain why you do and perhaps even try to persuade some of us who don't like it to think again but calling us arrogant and ill informed just because we don't agree with you is just not how we do things on Wright writes (I hope!).

[richard i]

"Arrogant and ill informed."

I have been called worse by the man himself......and probably deserved it.

I took it as honest feedback.

[Headstock]

Thanks for your comments, Johnster. 

 

I think your point about modelling a main line prototype is the most pertinent, providing one has the space. Space to go on/off stage on the straight; space to model full-length trains without compromise; space to apply the 'rule of thirds' where (within sensible limits) no train is longer than a third of the layout's length; space to let everything 'breath' in the scenic section and enough space (particularly in fiddle yards) to lay lots of roads without squeezing too much in and compromising the running. I'm lucky, I have all those essentials; without them, LB would not 'work' at every level. Others might have tried in smaller spaces, but too much compromise (or, if you wish to be PC, selective compression) is not for me. 

 

I love Gavin's inverse law, and I can see where he's coming from to some extent. However, I'll tell a tale to illustrate part of my take on it, if I may. It's a hot day in the summer of 1958. I'm standing on small mound in a field, adjacent to the WCML just north of Hartford Station, near to the junction of the chord from Hartford and Greenbank. Behind me is the CLC from Manchester Central to Chester. I can see an 8F on heavy hoppers simmering away on the chord, and I can just read its number (though it's easier with a rich mate's binoculars). I take no notice of whether it's got any brakes but I note the star above its number (which my Ian Allan abc tells me denotes it's balanced for faster running). For many minutes, the 8F doesn't move and I give it just a casual glance from time to time. It's not a cop, anyway. I turn around in response to a clanking noise as an O4/7 heads towards Delamere on an unfitted freight running on the CLC. Its number is almost invisible beneath a coat of dirt, but no matter; it's one of Gorton's, so won't be a cop. I observe its round-topped firebox, yet it still retains its GC smokebox, though there is no rising arc of the handrail around the top of its smokebox door. Does it have brakes? I have no idea. Yet, it's going slowly enough for me to observe all sorts of things.  

 

Now, the soon-to-be-removed Up home and distant pegs on the main line are pulled off and moments later a gleaming Semi in the form of 46246 CITY OF MANCHESTER belts southwards on the Up Royal Scot. What do I notice of this? The red on the loco is different from its maroon carriages but the most striking thing is its sloping smokebox top; the last one on the previously-streamlined Semis' There are shouts of joy, for it's a cop. 

 

What does all this waffle tell me? There are certain details which stick in my mind having seen such magical sights. I cannot recall noting such things (as mentioned) like brakes or even which BR device was carried on the tenders. Thus, if I were making models of these locos, those details I've noted would have to be included, with other details taken from contemporary photographs. So, it's of no consequence to me whether a loco flashes by in moments, plods by in minutes or stands in front of me for quite some time. They, and the trains they're pulling, should all be modelled to a consistent standard.

 

I love the different approaches to modelling mentioned. Mine, as is well known, is entirely self-indulgent. Retford comes to mind, with 61208 simmering away in its siding at the north end on the Up side. It could have been any one of a few B1s belonging to Retford, but I remember this one in particular because it had the closer-together hingestraps on its smokebox door, resulting in its front numberplate being placed higher than the norm'. When I built a model of it, this detail had to be correct. Did I pay it much attention otherwise? Of course not, but within three quarters of an hour 60066 MERRY HAMPTON had gone by with the northbound morning Talisman, no less than 60022 MALLARD had gone through with the northbound Elizabethan (an EE Type 4 was on the Scotsman, but I have no idea which it was) and 60013 DOMINION OF NEW ZEALAND had raced through with the UP Tees-Tyne Pullman.Those, I paid attention to. As I'll reiterate, you can keep all your shunters and pilots pottering about, in view for hours on end, moving at a crawling pace. When I recall those (briefest of) glimpses of steam express motive power, travelling fast on long, long-distance trains, with those humble six-coupleds fussing with wagons or stock, it's like comparing (or, to me, contrasting) a full length (but not really interesting) film to a gripping 'short'.

 

Those briefest of moments - an A1 going really fast at Askham, an A3 belting past Lincoln Road 'box at Markham, an A2/2 blasting over Botany Bay Crossing, an A4 racing through Ricall or a V2 pelting through Thirsk - are what fire my own personal modelling 'ambitions'.

That I can (in a tiny, tiny way) recreate those indelible memories on LB makes it all worth while; hence my choice of scale/gauge, my need for enough space, my choice of simplicity of control and my desire to personally make my own locos and (passenger) rolling stock.

 

All the above said, each to their own.

 

Did someone mention this being a sane thread? Thank goodness there are many, many folk who post on here who are, because my sanity has been questioned on many occasions.  

 

Afternoon Tony,

 

what a wonderfully evocative image you have conjured up, I'm far too young to have witnessed such a  spectacle, yet I can see it all, an oily piston gland, a rusty smoke box door, the gleam of the paint work on a fast moving express caught by the sun.

 

My Dad would go watch the North Britain come through Arthington station on the Leeds Harrogate line, inevitably Trigo would be at the head of the train and doing some knots. Arthington had a little narrow, wooden and raised platform station, as the train raced through he would have to cling on to the platform fence for dear life for fear of being sucked up into the vortex created by the passing train. He said with a smile, 'the breath would literally be drawn out of your body and you could feel the power of the locomotive right to the pit of your stomach and the tips of your toes'. I wonder if there is a sound chip for that one? if there is that's fine but I honestly don't require one because I can hear it all anyway.

 

Your modeling can't be entirely self-indulgent because it continues to provide inspiration for a large number of people to do the same. I have a hankering to do some modeling now but I must really get out in the garden and take advantage of the good weather. See what your post has done, you really are a bad influence.

[chris p bacon]

I am sorry but this thread has been conducted in a very polite and well thought out way. 

I agree it is polite but I wouldn't say 'thought out' I'd insert 'tiresome'  

 

I have a foot in both camps, running DCC at home and DC at the club, Home is my choice and club is due to those that supply the stock being DC so that is the way the club layouts have evolved.

 

 The one noticable thing within the club though is that all the electrical fault finding on the DC layouts is carried out by those that run DCC, it's quite clear that the choice for DC comes down to a lack of confidence in things electrical. I don't see a problem with that as everyone has their own talents but I can only presume that the criticsm of DCC is because of embarrassment of lack of knowledge which is human nature.

 

A few pages ago when it was the 'P4 doesn't run reliably' debate, I posted about a very large P4 layout of Welwyn North that ran well and looked good, among the items I cleared from the workshop was a DCC system with notes of which decoder for which locomotives and it was obvious from the notes on layout wiring that the decision had been taken to convert the layout from DC to DCC. I can only imagine the consternation that a reliable P4 layout with heavy fast expresses as well as 50 wagon goods running on DCC would cause.

[coachmann]

When I read what amounts to "DCC is poo", I think "Aye, so too is loco building, coach building, painting, electrics, ballasting and so-forth to lots of RMweb members". That said, I realise I am dead lucky not to be a humanoid. I was built during the war and pre-programmed with many talents, so when it came to railway modelling I never had to learn to persevere....   

Edited March 9, 2017 by coachmann

[KalKat]

I think I must have been 'new old stock' then Coachman. Although I did grow up with a lathe in the cellar (my father's not mine) and was expected to be able to do my own maintenance on my bicycle.  He also taught me to solder amongst many other things. I found it all intensely interesting!

 

 

Emma

[Clive Mortimore]

What a load of you know what.  The first thing you do with DCC sound is to turn down the volume, this makes it only audible in normal (scale) distances and is far more realistic.  Perhaps you might want to avail yourself of the latest Locoman sound chip with the prototype of your choice.  After trying many different sound chips, and also being a steam loco driver and railway sound recordist, it would have to produce the most realistic sound of any I have heard.  And as for tinny sound, you obviously haven't heard the latest speakers that are in use.

 

Frankly all this DCC vs DC and sound vs non-sound seems to be put up by those seeking excuses why they don't have it, rather than those who are experienced with both DC and DCC and the opportunities they provide.  I have modelled layouts with both DC and DCC, and I prefer DCC, my preference, so please stop with all the ill-informed comments about DCC problems when nearly every post I have read on this thread about it's problems is by people who are not familiar with it. 

 

I really appreciate seeing all the hard work and modelling skill displayed on this thread, but the arrogance of the DC vs DCC and sound vs non-sound really turns me off.  I know there are some declared luddites on this thread, I am sure I am one of them in certain aspects, but please respect the fact that we all have different preferences for modelling and it is a broad church.  Trying to forward an argument about which system is better than another, when most don't seem familiar with both sides of the argument, is just displaying arrogance.

 

Yours in modelling

Tony

Hi Tony

 

If you go back a few post and find my comments on why I model DC, it was about the positives I find with DC. I think the only slight negative about DCC was I mentioned the price of a switch as being cheaper than a DCC chip, and that is a fact, not a misconception.

 

So some of us Luddites are not anti-DCC and noise but positive DC modellers. No arrogance just happy with what we model.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[grahame]

 

. . . . the arrogance of the DC vs DCC and sound vs non-sound really turns me off.  I know there are some declared luddites on this thread, I am sure I am one of them in certain aspects, but please respect the fact that we all have different preferences for modelling and it is a broad church.  Trying to forward an argument about which system is better than another, when most don't seem familiar with both sides of the argument, is just displaying arrogance.

 

 

I contributed to the DC or DCC discussion earlier but I haven't foisted any of my beliefs or preferences, and I'm certainly familiar with both 'sides'.

 

I've also not noticed any arrogance - the discussion has been polite and well informed. I dont think anyone is saying one or the other is better and there has certainly not been arguments about which is best. People will have preferences and reasons that are personal to them about their likes and dislikes. Claiming that making such statements is arrogant is rather accusatorial and probably won't help keep things civil.

 

G

[t-b-g]

I agree it is polite but I wouldn't say 'thought out' I'd insert 'tiresome'  

 

I have a foot in both camps, running DCC at home and DC at the club, Home is my choice and club is due to those that supply the stock being DC so that is the way the club layouts have evolved.

 

 The one noticable thing within the club though is that all the electrical fault finding on the DC layouts is carried out by those that run DCC, it's quite clear that the choice for DC comes down to a lack of confidence in things electrical. I don't see a problem with that as everyone has their own talents but I can only presume that the criticsm of DCC is because of embarrassment of lack of knowledge which is human nature.

 

A few pages ago when it was the 'P4 doesn't run reliably' debate, I posted about a very large P4 layout of Welwyn North that ran well and looked good, among the items I cleared from the workshop was a DCC system with notes of which decoder for which locomotives and it was obvious from the notes on layout wiring that the decision had been taken to convert the layout from DC to DCC. I can only imagine the consternation that a reliable P4 layout with heavy fast expresses as well as 50 wagon goods running on DCC would cause.

 

Look back at the problems I have had with DCC, then read that somebody with the experience of Mike Edge have had the same problems and then tell me where you perceive my "lack of confidence" and "embarrassment of lack of knowledge".

 

I raised the problems that I was having with some of the best DCC brains in the country and the best suggestion was "A software glitch". I may be many things but a software glitch corrector ain't one of them!

 

I am embarking on a whole new project in a different gauge and scale and I could start afresh with DCC. The lack of confidence is in the technology, not my ability. If I hadn't seen these unexplained problems and the layout I work on was OK with no problems, I would be considering going DCC. I may yet fit chips and a switch so that locos can be one or the other, so I can run them on layouts that are DCC fitted.

 

The only things stopping me going DCC are that I have seen too many things go wrong and the cost. I would need to purchase the decoders and a DCC control system. Not cheap and not good value for me especially when I have locos and DC controllers that work perfectly well and do just what I want them to do.

 

I am not anti technology. I am a member of MERG and I enjoy making up printed circuit boards, testing them and getting them to work servos, point motors etc.

 

I know plenty of people who use DCC and at least one who uses radio control (which seems far superior than DCC as a concept and in the lack of "glitches) so I certainly don't dismiss them but they are not for me. 

[t-b-g]

"Arrogant and ill informed."

I have been called worse by the man himself......and probably deserved it.

I took it as honest feedback.

 

I once got called "The worst luddite since Tony Wright" by no lesser person that Iain Rice. What an honour!

[Bernard Lamb]

I think DCC I a move in the wrong direction.

Now if a fraction of the effort went into trying to make a viable scale steam or diesel engine, then I think we would be getting somewhere.

Till then I shall remain a Luddite. As for small speakers giving any sort of accurate sound, well, just ask the audio enthusiasts why they want the largest speakers that will fit in their listening room, even when they just want to hear a small instrument.

As regards sound at exhibitions, it should be banned. I find it totally distracting. Of course if a ban on talking while watching was enforced then their might be some point in allowing sound equipped locos.

I will concede that DCC sound on a large scale garden railway might be approaching the acceptable as regards an avenue to explore. I have only come across this on a German layout. Is their a specialist group in the UK?

Bernard

[Torper]

I'm a convert to DCC.  I'm quite surprised in myself as I'd previously always thought it an unnecessary extravagance.

 

When my old analogue controller finally gave up the ghost, I had to get a replacement.  I went along to a show where I came across the Digitrains stand.  Shortly afterwards, somewhat to my astonishment, I found I was the apprehensive owner of an NCE starter set and a couple of decoders.  I hadn't been able to decide what make of decoder to get - there seemed quite a disparity in price between the various brands and so it was suggested that I bought a more expensive one - Zimo - and a cheaper one - Digitrax - and compare them.  Suffice it to say that having compared performance  I've bought Zimo decoders ever since.  That perhaps was my first lesson - you get what you pay for, so if you want to avoid trouble, save up for a Zimo.

 

I was about to build a new layout so it was DCC from the start.  I don't know why anyone refers to complications with DCC, because the new layout was the easiest to wire that I'd ever built.  And it worked from the start.

 

Not only did it work, but it worked better than my old DC layouts had.  The constant 13 or so volts running through the rails regardless of the speed setting meant that slow running was more reliable, and that and the Zimo decoders ensured that slow running was the best I'd ever had.

 

Most of my locos are kit built, so most of the decoders are hard wired.  I suppose it could be said that that added a slight complication, but nothing of any consequence.  Curiously, the only decoder I've had that went wrong was in a converted RTR model where there was a nice socket all ready for the decoder.  Entirely though my own stupidity I put the decoder in upside down and that was the end of that.  Fortunately it wasn't too expensive as because it was a Zimo i was able to have it replaced for £15 even although it had been entirely my fault.

 

People have complained about CVs.  Well, I like fiddling around with CVs and have learned an awful ot on this forum, especially from pauliebanger, as to how to set up the CVs in such a way as to achieve the best possible performance from my locos.  That has given me greater control over my locos than i ever had with DC.

 

Sound?  Three of my nine locos have sound fitted and I do like it.  Apart from anything else, I now drive my locos more carefully and have set up the decoders to ensure that so far as possible the sounds respond to my driving (again, thanks pauliebanger), giving an entirely new dimension to my operation of the railway.  I'm not worried about the "illusion" - my model railway has never been an illusion, it's always been a model railway.

 

I've never experienced any of the problems Tony Wright listed in an earlier posting.  I suppose that thay could be because I use quality decoders and have also taken some time to learn how the system works and how it can be developed.

 

DT

Edited March 9, 2017 by Torper

[Focalplane]

I vow to never discuss the merits of DCC until the next time.  There are more important projects waiting on my workbench, never mind the need to ballast my Legge Lane layout.