Large Scale Central

NMRA/DCC Argument, Why?

General Discussion
#61

Yes, although that is the reverse idea.

Get the same screw terminal strips. Get some .1" center sip header material (double ended pins in a strip on .1" centers).

Solder a 12 pin strip to one side, and a 10 pin strip to the other. Now you plug into the socket and you have a screw terminal for every pin.

You could also do something tricky like an extender board so you could still plug in a decoder, but had terminals for every pin available too.

My original idea was to get those screw terminal blocks with “Tails” that would plug right into the sockets. Very low cost and little additional room taken.

(Now, don’t take this as embracing a big board that takes up the whole tender, just a way to connect to existing connectors.)

Good call.

Regards, Greg

#62

For what it’s worth (very little!), I like the idea of standardization. However, I also think that any standards should be geared towards maximum flexibility and simplicity. Leave a space for electronics, batteries, etc and provide an easy means of accessing that space; then provide a simple connection site where anyone’s preferred choice of electronics can be wired in between the motor and the power pickups.

Of course, I’m no expert and don’t know squat about electronics, so maybe I’m missing something.

#63

Boy, wouldn’t it be nice if people put this much energy into lowering grocery prices, and gas prices, and taxes…:frowning:

#64

For my own use; I don’t give a flying fig what in hell they put into the locomotive.
If I bought one I’d gutt the thing and wire it to suit myself, in a very simple manner.
The only "Plug(s)’ I’d want are between the loco and tender to save me installing them. A four wire plug of great quality, would be fine for this purpose, thank you.

I do feel a bit taken advantage of if I’m forced to pay more than a few bucks for equipment useless to my needs, that if left in place would only complicate any simple control system I wanted to install.

Once and for all; no-mater what these High Tech whizzes say; DCC is not the answer for the future in OUTDOOR Model Railroading. Most of them are only involved in roundy-roundy type pikes in any case, and don’t have a clue what real operation is all about; and I might say; don’t give a fart…!!!

It almost looks like a “Lionel Train/MTH” mentality is trying to rule the future of LS outdoor Model Railroading, with a perverse belief in DCC.

The more I hear of some charactor, pushing the NMRA/standard, so called “Plug”; the more I think someone is pushing this for reasons not yet made public…besides what someone says a wife’s involvement is.

Has anyone looked to see if someone has any registered patents, or ones pending…pertinent to this topic ?

There are more sides to this story than meet the eye, I’m sure.

The only real standards that we should be fighting for, are true, realistic track standards from the manufacturers, in order to improve overall operation of all equipment, along with wheel/guage quality standards.

These statements are my own, and I know will not appeal to the vast majority of herd followers, but it is a free World as far as I know, and I’m free to say what I think.

Enjoy our hobby in any way you want…as long as you are having fun.

#65

Fred and All,

I have to agree that there seems to be an underlying agenda. It just doesn’t make sense to pursue this line toward DCC. If the 1:1 guys haven’t done it, why would the minature guys be trying it? On one hand we have live steam, battery power and small gasolene engines moving forward duplicating the bigger stuff and only using the ribbons of steel, brass or aluminum to guide the creatures and then on the other hand we have what?

A duplication of minature stuff that works indoors, but creates its own set of problems trying to keep in contact with the equipment as it finds unwanted insulation breaking contact between the rails and the equipment and then needs rebooting like the earliest computers.

To each his own, but don’t keep trying to tell me its the only proper way. It reminds me of the constant Ford/Chevy debate as Asian made cars take over the market.

As to the original statement, the more that DCC is written about and the more it’s stated that I must follow the NMRA unstandards, the more I find another article that really just doesn’t interest me and the less I find a need to buy the magazine that devotes so much time to these subjects.

Give me basic equipment that I can modify or have modified to what I want. To offer engines that must come with DCC to get a certain paint scheme, means I have to strip out the guts and that means I have to really decided if the extra cost is really worth my money.

Your ideas are good for you, but I’ll make the decision if they are good for me. Is there an underlying agenda?

#66
Fred Mills said:
...............................

The only real standards that we should be fighting for, are true, realistic track standards from the manufacturers, in order to improve overall operation of all equipment, along with wheel/guage quality standards.

These statements are my own, and I know will not appeal to the vast majority of herd followers, but it is a free World as far as I know, and I’m free to say what I think.

Enjoy our hobby in any way you want…as long as you are having fun.


Fred,

Right on the money!!!

BTW I posted the PDF link in a German forum and the very first reply already mentioned “too much of this, not enough of that” strictly from a DCC perspective. But also spot on.

#67
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Big Snip

BTW I’m surprised that none of the sailors have piped up yet, isn’t there a naval term for those, too? :lol: :wink:
.


.
Well, sailor would probably call them “Running Lights,” but I really don’t think that applies. Running lights are red and green for port and starboard so you can tell which way the ship is running, and have an idea of its course. On a locomotive, if you see the classification…er…marker…uh…running…um…ditch…or whatever lights and you are on the track, you have a problem. If you are not on the track, no problem.

BTW, to pipe up or down is a nautical phrase, having to do with the bos’n’s pipe. I just thought you would want to know that.

#68

Well, if you want to take that course.

“none of the sailors have piped up yet”

I do claim the title of a retired Chief Boatswain Mate (pronounced bosun mate) and I did start this thread. But the whole conversation deserves few honors, we’re just piping the call.

#69

HI Bos’n’s Mate. Let’s splice the mainbrace.

Doc

#70

What I love is how people say DCC in easy and its the cat meow, then when we get installation questions we invariably get six to ten pages of the most confusing entries I’ve ever read! I’ll stick to DC, the power source and the comic book! KISS Keep It Simple, Stupid, Yep thats me! :smiley:

…and that other KISS. :smiley:

#71
Fred Mills said:
The only real standards that we should be fighting for, are true, realistic track standards from the manufacturers, in order to improve overall operation of all equipment, along with wheel/guage quality standards.
And so say all of me

Back in my box now!

#72

I will add to what Fr. Fred said and say coupler standards also.

#73

Warren;
Coupler standards would be nice; but unlike track standards, which would apply to all track, universaly; the question with couplers is: Which coupler.

Everyone seems to have their favourite, and who is daring enough to suggest that the Kadee coupler is the defacto-standard, or any of the others.

Each coupler; due to it’s individual design, requires a different mount, other than possibly the talgo mount.

Track on the other hand require only one basic standard for dimensions, other than the differing sizes of rail, in Gauge #1

The only other “Standard” needed to go along with a track standard, would be wheel profile, and guage standards for wheels. Meaning generally a standard for flanges, on the wheels, which would be affected by track standards. Switches, which would fall under “Track standards”; would certainly cause grief with the different flange sizes and varying wheel gauges.

#74

The other (larger) problem with coupler standards is that of scale. Even if you could “standardize” on a design, the question of size comes into play. The 1:29/1:32 crowd would obviously want a coupler that’s at least somewhat scale in appearance, and so would the 1:20.3 crowd, but to be satisfactory, they’d have to be appropriately scaled for each. Unless you’re modeling a 1:20.3 railroad that uses a 3/4 size coupler, anything other than something like Accucraft’s coupler isn’t going to cut it. And if you’re modeling 1:29/1:32, then something the size of Accucraft’s coupler will look hideously out of proportion, and will be a completely ignored standard–negating the point of having standards in the first place.

I think Bachmann and Accucraft are on the right track; they recognize that many will want to adopt a 3rd party coupler, and make it simple to do so by using similar or identical mounting pads. I really don’t see why the other guys can’t come to that realization. One can still offer the standard talgo couplers as stock components, but mold in a pad that accepts the favored body-mount couplers, too.

(At some point, I want to try Accucraft’s new 1:29 couplers if/when they become available as separate parts. I like the Kadees, but if I can get a prototypically operating 3/4-scale coupler for 1:20, I may be tempted to convert–especially if it’s a drop-in swap for a Kadee coupler pocket.)

Later,

K

#75

It would be nice to use the coupler lift bar that some manufacturers provide, rather than the ubiquitous (d*mn I spelled that right on the first go-round) long, thin flat-bladed screw driver for uncoupling. On close coupled passenger cars, even that won’t work.

I’ve been thinking about using the electromagnet couplers from the 3-rail universe. They’re about the right size for 1:29.

I said I’m only thinking about it. So far, there are too many problems to overcome for it to be practical, though.

:smiley: :lol: :smiley: :stuck_out_tongue:

#76

Didn’t Herb Chaudier use Lionel couplers on his equipment? I don’t remember what he did for uncoupling them, but I remember considering that as an option back when dad and I were looking at coupler possibilities. I seem to recall at least one variety of Lionel coupler that had little tabs on the side that you pushed down to uncouple them. Perhaps that would work. (It may also have been what Herb used.) Not as prototypic as lift bars, but close.

Later,

K

#77

Personally, I have no use for the NMRA. Ican also live with or without DCC or MTS, but there are benefits to the technology some of which has been decribed earlier in the thread. DCC is also a way for the toy train indutry to attract the electronic generation. By that I mean those people who have grown up with personal and handheld computers/devices, cellphones, video games, etc., etc. They are used to hand held controllers and programming software and/or hardware. There are also thiose people who don’t have the time, skill or money to modify their equipment.
The industry is starting to be like computer and cellphone industry by adding additional technologies that many of the customers don’t need but some might want and can add toi their profits. Then as what we might be seeing now it becomes standard. For good or bad technolgy and it’s applications to toy trains will continue.

LAO

#78

What I mean by standardized couplers is more standardized mounting pads, standardized height and couplers from different manufacturers that will to some extent couple to each other. There is no excuse for USAT, Aristocraft and Bachmann cars not being able to couple to each other right out of the box. Currently one has to hobcobble something to get them to work together.

#79

Warren Mumpower said:
What I mean by standardized couplers is more standardized mounting pads, standardized height and couplers from different manufacturers that will to some extent couple to each other. There is no excuse for USAT, Aristocraft and Bachmann cars not being able to couple to each other right out of the box. Currently one has to hobcobble something to get them to work together.

We DO have a standard universal coupler that works on pretty much everything from everyone…

Not the prettiest or anywhere most accurate looking thing I’ll agree but they DO work…personally I found my “universal” couplers already and have been slowely convering most of my tramline stuff to such…

What I’m going to do with my “mainline” stuff, Annie & full size cars etc, I am not sure yet. I currently have either B’mann couplers or those pesky H&Ls, I hate the Bmanns as they look about 5 times too big and arent the most reliable, and as for the ugly H&Ls, they’ll go away whenever I figure out what I’m going to do eventually. I like the idea of Kadees but I also have to modify some for interlinking with link & pins.

#80

My standard gauge stuff is Kadee but I’m going with Accucraft with my American profile narrow gauge stuff. I have yet to decide what my tram/sugar cane stuff (7/8ths) will have for couplers. US sources for European style couplers are next to impossible to find.