Messages From digitrax

 


----------------------------

#23499 Nov 1, 2000

I don't think a DC layout with all the functionality of the of the devices

you are complaining about would have less wiring than a DCC. There would be

a LOT of wiring for a DC layout that had detection, signaling, transponding

(if even possible), enough cabs for many loco/consists (how many DCC

throttles do you have?), blocks small enough to allow for independent helper

operation (forget about independent double heading), automatic block

control, computer control..... Yeah, you can have a simple two cab/10 block

DC system with very little wire, but you can also have a simple DCC system

with even less wire. I think for a given amount to functionality/features,

DCC will have less wiring than DC.

Michael Mosher

Daylight Division of PCR / NMRA

2001 Convention, May 2 - May 6, 2001

www.trainweb.org/pcr2001

San Luis Obispo Model Railroad Club

www.trainweb.org/slomrc > Message: 7

> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:17:07 -0500

> From: "Clark E. Thorp" thorp@...>

> Subject: BDL16 Wiring

>

> Peter White writes "Have you figured out, as I have, that by

> using PM-4s, BDL16s, transponding

> receivers and probably the signaling circuits (if and when) that

> we are now

> in a more complicated wiring mess than conventional DC? And with

> 14 or 12

> gage wire?"

>

> Yes! But in O scale, with a 30' x 50' layout, I'm looking at 10

> gauge wire!

>

> I have already started to determine booster requirements (e.g.

> number and placement) based on a physical distribution plan

> instead of absolute current loads. BDL16s further the problem.

> I think we need smaller, cheaper BDLs and slave boosters that

> can be physically distributed around large layouts. It's a

> whole lot more efficient to distribute 110VAC at sub ampere

> levels than 16 V at 8 amps.

>

>

>






S
e
n
i
o
r
T
u
b
e
.
o
r
g