Mid-Cornwall Lines - 1950s Western Region in 00

[Barry O]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

不是.

Pardon???

Can we have a translation from your better half please?

Baz

Currently in holiday mode

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 02/02/2019 at 21:37, Martin S-C said:

Each to his own sir, each to his own!

For my needs DCC is wonderful. I wouldn't contemplate any new layout using DC any more. Its just so... limiting... to what you can do.

EDIT: Chilling more.

 

There is not much one can do in DCC that can not be done in DC with a bit of clever wiring.

 

Not being that bothered about sound, main benefit of DCC for me would be the constant current on the track with resultant fewer problems relating to cleanliness of track.

 

 

[Barry O]

4 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

There is not much one can do in DCC that can not be done in DC with a bit of clever wiring.

 

Not being that bothered about sound, main benefit of DCC for me would be the constant current on the track with resultant fewer problems relating to cleanliness of track.

 

 

Try running Bob Harpers On3/On2 home layout on DC. We did it..once..dcc solved a lot of problems and got rid of multi way switches.

  DC is fine for simple layouts...the more interesting the track plan the more dcc answers a lot of questions. 

 

The Liverpool Overhead on Herculaneum Do k would have been very difficult to wire up for DC but very easy for dcc. And the running of the MD&HB railway has been improved tremendously by DCCing it.

 

No sound on the LHR or MD&HB yet...

 

Baz

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, Barry O said:

Pardon???

Can we have a translation from your better half please?

Baz

Currently in holiday mode

Ha ha. The Liar's Paradox refers.

 

No.

 

Google is your friend (other search engines are available).

 

https://en.bab.la/dictionary/chinese-english/不是

 

謝謝.

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

There is not much one can do in DCC that can not be done in DC with a bit of clever wiring.

 

Not being that bothered about sound, main benefit of DCC for me would be the constant current on the track with resultant fewer problems relating to cleanliness of track.

 

 

The main benefit for me is the ability to separate entirely the roles of driver and signalman.

[Martin S-C]

One can do that on a DC layout as well, but to suggest that there isn't much more you can do in DCC that DC can do with some well thought-out wiring is a trifle simplistic.

I don't think this thread is the place for that sort of discussion though. If you use DC and it works for you that's great. It has worked for me all my life except for the current layout build where I am heading off into DCC for the first time and from what I am learning so far its a system immeasurably ahead of DC, well planned wiring or not and I'd never go back now.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Martin S-C said:

One can do that on a DC layout as well, but to suggest that there isn't much more you can do in DCC that DC can do with some well thought-out wiring is a trifle simplistic.

I don't think this thread is the place for that sort of discussion though. If you use DC and it works for you that's great. It has worked for me all my life except for the current layout build where I am heading off into DCC for the first time and from what I am learning so far its a system immeasurably ahead of DC, well planned wiring or not and I'd never go back now.

Martin, many years ago I worked out a DC cab-control system whereby the sections were connected to the controller to which the move was to be made purely by setting up the points and signals concerned. This used the 8 DPDT connections on PO key switches, all cascaded together hence the name Cascade Section Switching, or CSC, that I gave it. It worked on a trial basis but would have been fearsomely complicated on a large layout. When DCC came along I realised that I could do all that I wanted with (multiples of) only two wires so I abandoned any further development of CSC.

 

I'm happy for any discussion to develop here, as long as it follows RMweb rules. As I've said before, RMweb is a virtual club. At real clubs we talk about anything and everything, some of which might even, however tenuously, have something to do with railways real or model. The same goes here as far as I'm concerned.

[Joseph_Pestell]

12 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The main benefit for me is the ability to separate entirely the roles of driver and signalman.

 

I am totally in agreement with that. Very much the way I like to operate (I prefer being signalman).

 

But it does not need DCC. Peter Denny was doing it 60 years ago.

[Clive Mortimore]

15 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I am totally in agreement with that. Very much the way I like to operate (I prefer being signalman).

 

But it does not need DCC. Peter Denny was doing it 60 years ago.

Real railway. Signaler sets the route with the points. He then clears the route for the train by changing the signals from danger to line clear.

Driver opens throttle and off he goes.

 

Model railway DC controlled. Operator sets route, clears the signals. He then drives the train. Now if there are two people one can do the signaler's job and the other drive the trains.

 

How does having DCC separate the roles if only one operator?

[Joseph_Pestell]

9 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Real railway. Signaler sets the route with the points. He then clears the route for the train by changing the signals from danger to line clear.

Driver opens throttle and off he goes.

 

Model railway DC controlled. Operator sets route, clears the signals. He then drives the train. Now if there are two people one can do the signaler's job and the other drive the trains.

 

How does having DCC separate the roles if only one operator?

 

Yes, of course, Either DC or DCC, one person operation involves fulfilling both roles.

 

But conventional DC also involves switching of sections which is not either the signalman's or the driver's role. It's only when we go to a more advanced level of DC where the sections are linked to the signals that we can do nearly all that DCC does.

 

Apart from sound, the only other real operational difference in DCC is being able to attach a loco on-scene to double-head. And even that can be done in DC with a bit of careful placement of isolating rail joiners.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I am totally in agreement with that. Very much the way I like to operate (I prefer being signalman).

 

But it does not need DCC. Peter Denny was doing it 60 years ago.

 

Well, maybe he did - but it took this lot to do it.

 

 

 

 

No thanks.  I'm sticking to 'multiples of two wires' as St Enodoc wisely phrased it.  I don't mind if folk want to stick to DC, but please don't try to say it can do what DCC does.  

[Clive Mortimore]

4 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

Well, maybe he did - but it took this lot to do it.

 

 

 

 

No thanks.  I'm sticking to 'multiples of two wires' as St Enodoc wisely phrased it.  I don't mind if folk want to stick to DC, but please don't try to say it can do what DCC does.  

Lovely.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Yes, of course, Either DC or DCC, one person operation involves fulfilling both roles.

 

But conventional DC also involves switching of sections which is not either the signalman's or the driver's role. It's only when we go to a more advanced level of DC where the sections are linked to the signals that we can do nearly all that DCC does.

 

Apart from sound, the only other real operational difference in DCC is being able to attach a loco on-scene to double-head. And even that can be done in DC with a bit of careful placement of isolating rail joiners.

Hi Joseph

 

You mention having to switch the sections with DC, I always see that as part of the route setting by the signaler.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

Well, maybe he did - but it took this lot to do it.

 

 

 

 

No thanks.  I'm sticking to 'multiples of two wires' as St Enodoc wisely phrased it.  I don't mind if folk want to stick to DC, but please don't try to say it can do what DCC does.  

 

But it can. Perhaps not in a way that you like but...

 

I would admit that my wiring is not as tidy as some (any clubs that I have belonged to had proper railway electricians). But then again, it does look tidy by comparison with this lot. Using the right type of switch helps a lot.

[Stubby47]

Peter Denny made his own switches...

 

Not to mention his own computer (The Automatic Crispin).

[Barry O]

Set route

Check switches

Operate signals..

Food and drink at Leeds MRS CIO.

 

If I operate a layout I like to know everything is set correctly before driving.

 

...and, on the Big On3/On2 layout....what signals? You need to negotiate your path through a single track with passing loops. No amount of dcwiring, switching, sectioning etc worked. A lot easier with dcc. The sound and lights are a bonus but necessary when you can't see the train you are operating....

 

Baz

[Clive Mortimore]

49 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Set route

Check switches

Operate signals..

Food and drink at Leeds MRS CIO.

 

If I operate a layout I like to know everything is set correctly before driving.

 

...and, on the Big On3/On2 layout....what signals? You need to negotiate your path through a single track with passing loops. No amount of dcwiring, switching, sectioning etc worked. A lot easier with dcc. The sound and lights are a bonus but necessary when you can't see the train you are operating....

 

Baz

Flicking a few switches is not that much of a problem. Unlike having to tap in the number before driving the loco.

 

My layout.....Manchester sidings, the loco is a Brush type 2. It is green so it isn't D5578 or D5579 so which one of the other 29 is it? Blow if I can see its number from the command post, so off I would have trundle to see it. Flick, flick , flick, Brummmm and off it goes, in less time that me walking around the layout to see a number.

 

I have managed on DCC layouts to set things incorrectly equally as well as I do on a DC layout.

[Michael Edge]

If you think that's difficult, spare a thought for Carlisle with more than 200 locos spread around a layout that's 100ft long.....

(I do have an idea to improve things though)

With DC you have to know where the loco is, with DCC you have to know what it is, both can be problematical.

[Martin S-C]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Flicking a few switches is not that much of a problem. Unlike having to tap in the number before driving the loco.

 

Why is tapping a few keys to set up your loco a "problem"?

Tapping in the loco number can be seen as analagous to a crew signing on, learning what loco they are rostered to and going to find it in the yard, getting aboard and getting their gear stowed. If your imagination can suspend disbelief, its quite an accurate process. All we lack is little animated figures walking to their loco. DC has no such analagous procedure.

Its plain that DCC is not for everyone and it was never meant to be. Micro and small layouts gain little benefit from it unless you especially like sound and inertia and such, in fact DCC can be a negative on some layouts as friends may not be able to bring visiting locos but for bigger layouts with multiple drivers, routes, signalmen and such, DCC is a huge step forward in simplicity of wiring and ease of operation. For the less mechanically minded it also makes things like point/signal interlocking easier because its a simpler process.

DCC is on average a good deal more expensive however. But you are paying for greater flexibility and ease of use, as well as the extra features.

If you are not a user or fan of DCC it must still be seen that it is an advance on DC otherwise it would never have been designed.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Martin S-C

[Talltim]

I have to say where DCC really scores is at modular meets. The ability to have 20 operators driving trains, anywhere on a layout that no-one has ever seen before, using controllers (smartphones) they brought themselves is great.

[calvin Streeting]

dont forget clockwork is allways a option..  i say use what you know and and you want, after all its all about FUN  both work both have plus points etc.. (cost is one) 

[The Stationmaster]

On 27/01/2019 at 08:00, St Enodoc said:

I've got this one:

 

The code on the back cover suggests that it was published in June 1958.

 

Inside the back cover are others in the range. I've never seen a copy of any of these.

I've got British Warships - with quite a few of them underlined (in pencil)

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Real railway. Signaler sets the route with the points. He then clears the route for the train by changing the signals from danger to line clear.

Driver opens throttle and off he goes.

 

Model railway DC controlled. Operator sets route, clears the signals. He then drives the train. Now if there are two people one can do the signaler's job and the other drive the trains.

 

How does having DCC separate the roles if only one operator?

It doesn't!

[Chamby]

Often judgement of DCC is based upon the experience of operating somebody else’s layout and I can understand that, from this limited perspective, the cost/benefit argument is not compelling.  Of course operationally you can do most things with analogue... with lots of pre-planning and miles of wiring!  DCC does simplify things hugely out of sight, under the boards, and behind the control panels, and it is hard to appreciate this until you’ve been there and done that, so to speak.

 

DCC is one of those things that requires a step of faith, but once you’ve done it, the return on your investment is very tangible!

[Sharky]

I'll throw my 2 Cents in for what it's worth.
 

I personally have a preference for DCC as it's a lot more flexible with what it can do 'off the shelf', as opposed to Analogue.
Generally requires less Wiring as there is no need for isolating sections and no real need to have Block sections either (although breaking up a large layout can be useful for fault fining).

For larger layouts it's a breeze to operate, not having to worry about isolating trains and changing blocks.
Also has the benefit of having Sound and easier replications of prototype operations, like double heading & Banking to name a few, for those inclined (no pun intended) to do so.

 

But, as previously mentioned, Analogue does still have it's place.

For smaller layouts unless you want sound and to worry about slightly less wiring, it would be perfectly acceptable to run DC.

But DC can also work on larger layouts, as it has done for many years.
Myself and John (aka St. Enodoc) regularly operate on a large DC layout with timetables and a fast clock to keep the pressure on.
The layout is run by 6-8 people who are all station operators.
The layout is a single track mainline with Two short branch lines, the station operators drive the trains to and from the neighbouring station.
This layout has been running for over 50 years and aside from the odd fault here and there works very well. Converting this layout to DCC wouldn't be beneficial to operation as it would slow things down and the cost of converting every loco would be overwhelming.

 

Analogue still has its place, as it's nice to be able to place a loco on the track straight from the box and watch it go.
Not having to wait till you can fit a decoder, and generally waiting a few weeks till you can even do that because the local hobby shop is out of stock of the required decoders...

 

Even for the extra cost of it, I still wouldn't go back to analogue.
But if you prefer DC then go for it, after all aren't we all here to have fun?