Hornby Lecture at Alexandra Palace

[walkingthedog]

Anyway this is the last time I shall mention anything to do with DCC

 

Up until a few years ago we all used DC and were happy. Some and I say some DCC users seem to think that because they have it everybody else are idiots not to have it. DC is absolute

 

rubbish. I wonder if that in a few years a replacement for DCC will appear and these same people, and I use that term to be polite, will be saying that DCC was also rubbish.

 

Apart from the cost of fitting decoders to my 87 locos, must stop buying them,

 

my main problem is that DC won't work on DCC which is a shame because if it did I would go over to it now.

 

If I upgrade to a Blueray player I can still play my DVDs on it until I slowly upgrade them to Blueray. That to me is progress, not a system that

 

prevents you from running your locos.

 

I try to keep up with the DCC threads because one day I might start using it but because of the attitude of some DCC users I don't think I will and will ignore the DCC section. No great loss to Hornby I'm sure they'll

 

manage.

[Graskie]

walkingthedog said:

That's you opinion Graskie. I can control four locos at once without having to remember what number has been allocated. The thought of playing trains with a PC leaves me cold.

If you play trains on a PC with RailMaster,

you don't have to remember numbers as they can be set out for you together with loco details including a picture. Functions can similarly be shown by name rather than having to remember their number.

[walkingthedog]

I spend too much time staring at a screen, I don't want to do it when playing trains.

Goodbye DCC.

[Graskie]

Is that enough now, fellow DCC lovers? Let's just leave him in his cave.

[walkingthedog]

That's my point made. Thank you Graskie, helpful as ever.

[Fishmanoz]

While the title to this thread is cryptic as far as the discussion we've been having, at least we've given others a good understanding of DC versus DCC, and been polite while we were doing it. We don't all have to have the same opinion but respecting other's

 

opinions is a must.

[RDS]

guys.....

Whilst the discussion you have been having is fascinating, I cannot help but wish that you would start a new thread if you wish to discuss the merits or otherwise of DC & DCC.

 

I have put a fair bit of effort into trying to find out

 

about the Hornby Lecture at the Alexandra Palace and in particular what it will offer to the excellent (in my view) DCC system.

 

The title is not crytic - it is very specific.

[poliss]

It's been 5 days and nobody seems to know. Have you tried asking on their FB page?

[RDS]

@poliss

 

See my posting on the 5th April @19:11

[poliss]

It's been 5 days and nobody seems to know. Have you tried asking on their FB page?

[poliss]

Oh dear, the forum is posting things twice again.

[RDS]

@poliss

 

Shame about the double posting but do you have a view on the Hornby announcement at the show.

[poliss]

I'm saying there's no more information other than what has been given already. Hornby seem to monitor their Facebook page more than they do this forum, so if more info and photos are wanted then Facebook is the place to be.

[RDS]

@poliss

Thanks - but I didn't realise and no-one bothered to say that before.

When you put FB on a previous post, I thought it meant Feedback!

You learn something new every day.

 

[stephenknicholson]

I went to the saturday presentation (as a happy user of the B** D** system) just to educate myself. They are keeping details of new features close to their chest, but came out of the lecture being impressed by Railmaster and e-link when it comes out. I

 

asked about using track location and multiple speakers as an alternative to expensive sound decoders - which the presenter declined to answer. Reading between lines this seems to be where the system is headed. I have been convinced enough to get an old PC

 

setup in my layout room ready for the release of e-link.

 

My hope is that the loco detection will a) use the main DCC bus and not individual wires to the detectors, and b) not be optical, perhaps RFID??

[LMSTim]

RFID would be prohibitively expensive. Cost of RFID sensors is around £30 - £50 so Hornby would have to sell each track sensor for over £100, which is mad. Let's say you need an average of 20 sensors for a layout that's over £2,000. Nobody in their right

 

mind would pay that. It has to be some kind of passive, much cheaper system.

 

And as for getting information back to the PC using the DCC bus, how would you do that? The only option is RailCom but that only supports feedback from the loco decoder itself.

 

It would, again, have to be a separate system using separate wires.

 

[walkingthedog]

One of the advantages of DCC as I am always being told is that it needs much less wiring than DC. As it gets more and more advanced it would appear it will end up with more wires than DC and users will spend as much time 'crawling about under the layout'

 

as DC uses.

[stephenknicholson]

LMSTim said:

RFID would be prohibitively expensive. Cost of RFID sensors is around £30 - £50 so Hornby would have to sell each track sensor for over £100, which is mad. Let's say you need an average of 20 sensors for a layout that's over

£2,000. Nobody in their right mind would pay that. It has to be some kind of passive, much cheaper system.

And as for getting information back to the PC using the DCC bus, how would you do that? The only option is RailCom but that only supports feedback

from the loco decoder itself. It would, again, have to be a separate system using separate wires.

Thats dissappointing, its not a technology I know much about. However a quick search shows RFID readers for £4.65 ...

[Fishmanoz]

WTD, the reason there is less wiring for DCC is that more information is modulated onto a single pair of wires in DCC via the NMRA standard. There is no reason why more cannot be done in this regard, rather than running more wires. If RailCom can provide

 

feedback via loco decoders, and it is locos we are trying to detect, then we already have a basis within the standard that might be utilised. Although if Tim from his position is poopooing the idea, maybe they've yet to figure out how to do that.

[walkingthedog]

I realise that you need less wires with DCC fishy but they were talking about detectors using wires. If you had lots of them it would be back to wires everywhere, that's why I made the tongue in cheek remark. Surely a wireless system is the way to go.

[Fishmanoz]

WTD, that would still mean another system whereby a detector reports, with or without wires, that a loco has arrived at its location from whichever direction. I think what I'm suggesting is that instead the loco report that it has been detected via the

 

existing RailCom facility. All that the detector would need to do is draw track power from its position in or adjacent to the track and report the passing of a particular loco ID at that position. And do all of this utilising functions and CVs that are already

 

part of the system.

 

Now I haven't thought this through to the extent that I know it to be feasible, but it would certainly be the place I would start from.

[walkingthedog]

Believe or not I actually understand what you mean fishy. Using wires rather defeats one of the objects of DCC.

[Fishmanoz]

Amazing, can you explain it to me then please?

[walkingthedog]

Is this a test? Think I'll quit while I'm behind.

[Fishmanoz]

I'll go with that. Notice that TnT are active again and at least one getting himself in enough trouble without our help.