Re: DCC Controller Features

system can be installed

these bozzos can only

driver, that I am justified

If those actual railroad employees really think that the loco drivers operate the railroad, then "Bozzo" is an apt term.

Regards, Greg.P.

They operate small sections of it. I've not seen (m)any signs that you understand the entire operation, or even the intent of the railway.

Shows how much attention Procter's been paying. I was specifically discussing North American working, which is why I kept posting links to, and referring to, things like GCOR and NORAC. So it's glaringly obvious that he never bothered to read any of them.

But as you say, there isn't all that much difference between contemporary NA and Australian practice.

Of course I wasn't bothering to read them - I was endeavouring to describe an alternative analogue operating system to rotary switches and linking that description to the railway operating "mechanisim". At that point, it doesn't matter about the specifics of the operating "mechanisim", just that the "mechanisim" must exist. Obviously, when I mentioned specifics of my prototype "mechanism" you became confused and argumentative.

Try this one,

Note you said railway, not trains! IMHO 'control' and 'operate' are near enough. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

:-)

Yes, I did too. *Operate* the railway, though, not *control* it.

Not in mine.

Traffic officers/DS's control the railway.

Traincrew operate it.

We can split semantic hairs until the cows come home, but I'll say this much - when I'm at work I know damn well I'm not controlling the railway, but I know equally well that the people at network control aren't operating it, either.

Looking better than mine.

I'll have to double check the mag when I get home. The layout has been pointed to in this group a few times. For some reason I thought it had your name on it!??

Paul

Nothing to be ashamed of. Looks a good one to play trains on!

I hope you never have to move house :-(

That's the trouble with words, they mean what you want them to mean, but if you choose a meaning different from your listeners you will not be understood.

I agree that contrllers are not operating the railway - by themselves, neither are the drivers. Operating a railway is a co-operative effort. Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

Read Mark Twain's "Life On The Mississippi" to get an idea of what it's like to not only have to memorise the river, but it's constantly changing conditions, shifting channels, moving bars and snags, etc. It's as if somebody kept moving the tracks around every night...not only that, but they had to recognise where they were when awakened for a watch at midnight....

But you know what? The river pilots did it, and did it well, And we're talking about hundreds of miles of river, not one little 100 mile division...

That has been repeatedly shown not to be the case.

Call 'em A and B. What difference does that make? They were both operating under thae same conditions, right? Or is it only foggy if you've left from Dunedin?

Well, the intent is to enrichen the stockholders. Any of us doing that?

You're thinking of "Engineer", which is different from engineer.

It has also been shown that it is the case! Still, if you wish to loan me the insignificant sum of $4000- then I will add decoders to all my locos. Repayment to be noted on my will.

Regards, Greg.P.

So you claim the driver/train in it's rightful place with clearance to the passing loop is also responsible for the collision. Oh dear!

You're probably enriching the UP stockholders if you buy UP models. But I perhaps put that badly - the 'business' of the railway is to move goods and passengers.

I've acted as one of each at times - "e" is the fellow with the slide rule and hammer while the other one is much less qualified. "ngineer" perhaps?