Re: DCC Controller Features

You also need to make sure the tender couplers are isolated from the track power. I think the would be a requirement for DCC as well to avoid possible shorting the track.

There is no need for a computer or relays using DC control. See my web page for details on how to do it.

The reason for the invention of signals and block working was to make the railway safer compared to the earlier systems such as train order. This it did.

Check out how many US railroad accidents are a result of a failure in the train order system. Then compare it to railways which used UK style block systems. The NZ head on mentioned earlier is a good example of how unsafe train order can be. How many head on's did NZ have when using UK style block working methods. I don't know, but it will be a better record than under train order.

message

The Block Telegraph system has been here for 150 years but how many incidents in Australia has there been using Train Order signalling rule NSY502.Its easiler to issue a Mishap Order rule NSY510.Train Order is much easier, cost effective and you don't need as many employee's running the show.A computer runs the show, and is much easier especially when a computer applies blocking facilties rather than a human when a blocking sleve can be removed by a human much easier, when there is multiple persons in the box a blocking sleve can be easily removed, thats why I prefer Train Order or Rail Vehicle Detection system of Safeworking.

Are you a Safeworking Expert now Terrance

Nathan

Bankside, 29 March 1907,

New Lynn, 28 May 1913,

Papatoetoe, 24 August 1946,

Parnell, 8 September 1947,

Levin, 12 April 1950,

Stillwater, 11 November 1960,

Wellington, 17 October 1979,

Wellington, 24 March 1980.

These are the ones I can readily find reference to, there were probably others.

Eight collisions versus one. A better record compared to train order working?

You have mentioned a number of safe working systems, train order in the US did not use computers for many years. Also computers are not failsafe, hence the need of 3 to check up on each other. Safety is not about what is the easiest or cheapest to do. Technology has improved making a train order style system reasonably safe in low use lines, if implemented correctly. I recall one accident with 3801, in which an interurban ran into the back of the train, killing a number of passengers, the result of 3801 slipping, using excess sand, combined with a detection system not sensitive enough for the conditions. To be fair, this was the only accident due to failure of automatic block in NSW I am aware of. I am unaware of any accidents as a result of block telegraph failure on the Illawarra, or electric staff working failure on the Illawarra. However we did have an accident in recent times were another interurban hit the rear of the Indian Pacific. The system being used was a form of train order. Would not have happened if the old safeworking rules were applied. The block telegraph rules were proven and if followed, the blocking sleeve is correctly used. The low incident of block telegraph accidents proves the system.

That was in Rail Vehicle Detection Area and they are Semi Authomatic Signals , certain area's of Cowna Bank can be cut in during Bi Directional working

Again in Rail Vehicle Detection Area, and I say that was partically the blame of the electric train driver, after a risk assessment I would have waited until WL2 has cleared Lapstone or Emu Plains, I would blcoked worked WL2 to at least Emu Plains, who cares about the delay to the passengers on the Interurban, I think Safety comes first before on tiem running.

I wasn't Train Order Territory, in was in a Track Cicuited area (Rail Vehicle Detection)

What basic Block Working.I doubt if the rules for basic Block Working have changed.The other block working rule got changed to CAN Block Working with the Rule Change in December 2002.

The block telegraph rules were proven and if

Block Telegraph system of safeworking is different to Basic Block working / CAN Block working of Rail vehicles in Track Circuited area's.

I suggest you go look at a Copy of the Network Rules, Network Procedures and Operator Specific Proceedures, before you talk Safeworking for me, because remember, Safeworking is my job, I work in a Medium Sized Interlocking with a High Density of Traffic.

Nathan

message

introduced.

A blocking Sleve is only a cap that is placed over the button to prevent someone coming along and clearing the signal, or in the old days of lever frame boxes it was a material placed on the lever and a piece of metal placed on the lever to prevent it from being used to clear the signal or change the points.

Its up to the person using the sleve, not the sleve itself.May I suggest you get soem work experience in a real block tele, elect staff, train staff and ticket signalboxes, there is till a few left in NSW and it seems like you dont know what your talking about, remember Terry, Im qualified in all systems of safeworking and have had operation experience, in these area's of Safeworking.

Nathan

The low incident of block

In article snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz, Gregory Procter at snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz wrote on 1/6/05 2:58:

How is Digital Command Control "dumbing down the hobby"? It's been stated ad nauseum before: DCC lets one operate his trains most realistically without having to mess with numerous toggle switches to "plug in" a specific train electrically. Another advantage - benefit, really - is that it simplifies your layout wiring immensely. For those of us who prefer our operations to be as realistic as possible, DCC is the more-desired control technology over DC (analog).

I believe it was Captain Handbrake who said in a previous post in this thread that those who favor DCC are dyed-in-the-wool operations buffs, or even former or current railroad employees (I'm a railroad employee AND an operations buff.)

Granted, Procter, you're rather fanatical (rabid?) in your support of DC, but why must you disparage DCC at every turn? What's wrong with being open-minded? Have you ever actually run trains on a DCC-equipped layout?

I used to be more inclined toward DC, if only for a practical reason. My indebtedness colored my approach to everything, including my hobbies. For model railroading, for example, I couldn't justify the initial expense of buying a DCC system and equipping a few locos; I needed that money to pay down some of my debt. Now that my bankruptcy has lifted or stayed the debt burden, I can breathe more easily, and I've even become more open to the idea of installing DCC on my switching layout from the get-go when I build it. Hopefully, within the next twelve months or so, I'll be able to begin construction.

Dieter Zakas

And how many are head on's due to safe working failure?

It's "dumbing down" because you don't _have_ to think - specifically about how the real railways operate and how they keep their trains separated. I'm not suggesting that it's compulsory, just that there is no need to think. I'm sure several of you DCC users do think.

Why oh why, do you argue about DCC of today and analogue of 1940? The world has moved along, technology has moved along and there are better ways than multiple toggle switches for every six inches of track.

Well, no it doesn't. If you have single oval of track and only a single track feed for 10-20 locos that might be the case. Once you start adding track blocks with detectors and signalling, the difference is not great at all.

You appear to be confusing "operation" and "train driving".

I do _not_ disparage DCC, I comment when non-thinkers advise beginners that DCC is the only way to go.

That depends on how much falls out! ;-)

Well yes, I own a number of different Digital systems, operate DCC, fit decoders for hobby money, and have given several clinics on DCC at conventions. I have assisted a number of people in converting their layouts to DCC operation and advocate it in some situations.

I'm not well heeled and $$$ are a consideration, but, in working out how my present layout would be operated, I concluded that DCC would solve some of the problems inherent in analogue control, but would create other problems. Most of the problems created by DCC could be resolved, but the cost of DCC would be far higher than analogue. One problem that remains insolvable with DCC for me is how to recognise each loco's individual address. With analogue it is simple - read the track diagram and power up the track it is sitting on.

DCC may well do all you want of it, but once one reaches the upper limits of it's capabilities there is nothing more to be done other that buy an ever more expensive CU or wait for the next upgrade of capabilities. For analogue it's nothing more than another brainstorming session a few more wires and another toggle switch :-)

Greg.P.

All of them(?)

Greg.P. wrote: >

Yes, all of the above mentioned collisions were due to safeworking failure.

Awaiting the spin...

OK - was the failure (in each case) a failure of employees to observe "safeworking proceedures" or was the "safeworking proceedure" inadequate for the situation?

Ah HA!.......~That~ is the $64,000 question. Running a dark, trainorder-timetable railroad with a high traffic density is begging for deadly accidents. Running one on a single track line with four to six trains a day is well within the bounds of safeworking. What was the traffic density on the line under discussion ? were the trains operating on eight hours headway or were they operating on twenty minutes headway? If it takes you six to eight hours to make your run and you have only to meet one, or possibly two, scheduled trains, working dark with a timetable and train orders is no sweat. If you have to meet five or more trains in a 150 mile (240KM) run that requires four to five hours to cover, you need signals. You've exceeded the safe capacity of an unsignaled line. I would not work on such a line. I would bid-off onto another job, or find a new line of work. A railroad job isn't any good if you can't survive the experience.

message

snip

At the time automatic block was in use, singnal direction.

Yes, but they did not have the system fully implemented. The person who gave authority for the driver to pass the automatic signal at stop did not have an operating indicating system. So the system in place was similar to an unsafe train order method. Call it what ever you like. The Driver contributed to the accident by driving to fast. The signalman, forgot about were the Indian Pacific train was and gave an order to proceed, informing the driver the block was clear. The accident occurred because the safe working system at the time was fundamentally flawed, so all the blame cannot be with the driver or the signalman, but rests with the management who designed an allowed an unsafe system to be used.

Why do you think the rules were changed in 2002?

What system are you referring to when you talk basic block working? Do you mean staff working, the fundamental rule of one train per block applies, just the same as block telegraph, and automatic block outside the suburban area in NSW. These systems are safer than US steam era train order, lack of accidents due safe working failurers prove this..

Your experience is operating current systems and rules. Just like operating a computer, follow the rules and hopefully things work. It does not mean you understand how a computer works. Operating the system does not make you any more an expert on other systems you don't use than any one else. It also does not make you more of an expert on how to design safeworking systems different from your existing system than any one else or which system is safer. So what is fundamental difference between CAN block working and automatic block Nathan?

trainorder-timetable

The example of accident I brought forward had two trains in 24 hours - it must take real skill to get them to collide!

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:24:00 +1300, Gregory Procter wrote:

wrote:

trainorder-timetable

Indeed! Since I do not know NZ rules, I cannot really talk about the wreck at the most informed level, but I would want to know if NZ trains have a hierarchy of right and superiority as do North American ones. In NA, Generally, northbound and eastbound trains are superior to southbound and westbound trains of the same class. There are some exceptions, but I am speaking generally. First class trains are superior to second class trains, and so on for as many classes as the line has. Thus: A first class northbound train is superior to every other train on the railroad. A southbound first class train is superior to everything except a northbound first class train. And so it goes on down the hierarchy. Direction and class are called out in the timetable. A train that has RIGHT is superior to all other trains (generally) or superior to specifically named trains in some instances. Right is conferred by train order from the dispatcher and is superior to class and direction. So then.......... Assuming that one of the trains was superior and the other inferior, the one who did not turnout into the passing loop would, most likely be the one at fault. If they were operating at night, in train order - timetable territory, with or without signals, and with one man per train, and with no radio, I would transfer the blame to the railway company. That is no way to run a railroad. It is how you cause people to get killed.

No such thing as automatic block.

You obviously have no idea about Basic Block Working/C.A.N Block Working.Go read the Network Rules/Network Proceedures before replying to my posts, cos you have no f-ing idea what your talking about.

Do you

How do you f-ing know that

It doesn't make you an expert either, remember Safeworking is my trade and how I earn my living.I have you operated a Block tele, Trains Staff and Ticket or Electric Staff or RVDS signalbox

You couldn't organise a chook raffle

So what is

Like I told you Mr I know it all, go browse thru a Copy of the Railcorp Network Rules, Network Proceedures and Operator Specific Proceedures and Current permanent Safe Notices, then come back and talk Safeworking to me, otherwise don't reply back because your just making a fool out of yourself.

Maybe Greg and Mark could back me up here.

Nathan