Where you are, perhaps, but in this Part of Canada, they go for about Can$30.00 each, plus around 14.5% tax.
Now that ain't cheap.
-- Cheers Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
Where you are, perhaps, but in this Part of Canada, they go for about Can$30.00 each, plus around 14.5% tax.
Now that ain't cheap.
-- Cheers Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
Ever hear of engine facilities? Ever hear of helper engines?
I don't know of any yard that requires all uncoupling to be done at the same arbitrary point on each track.
Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"
I believe another poster answered that:
"There is no full size prototype railroad in the world upon which the trains are controlled by routing electrical current to the tracks and/or varying the amplitude thereof. Even totally electric railroads do not control the speed and direction of the trains by messing about with the electrical feed. It is there and on at all times. All the control takes place inside the locomotive unit either by the engine driver, or communication between computers, or some such arrangement."
Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"
You are correct, It ain't, but have heart. At the current trend the Canadian $ may once again soon be worth more than the US $ like it was up 'till the '70s.
Regards, Obnoxious Pratt.
Great! This series of exchanges began because I challenged a statement that effectively said without reference to situation that DCC is the only choice to be considered.
It makes sense - read it slowly and think.
Ditto for DCC. Oh, and yes, the London Underground Postal Railway did just that.
All that holds true _if_ your track layout consists of a single line of track. Certainly that is what you will find in the boxed set that Grand-ma buys you for Christmas but it certainly doesn't hold true for any serious model railway I have seen. OK, you're in complete control of your loco/train on both the layout and on the prototype, but, on the prototype you can only follow the single line of track (in either direction) that is open to you. Safety considerations dictate that you can't act like you can in a supermarket carpark the night before Christmas, but on your model railway you are both driver and signalman/turnout operator so that's what you do.
In what sense is it so great? On my layout the trains/locos follow a single track, and on that track I have complete control of speed and direction. There is absolutely no need for me to have control over the parallel tracks while my loco isn't there. Sure, I might pick up my loco and place it on the next track and at that moment DCC has an absolute advantage over my analogue control, but outside toy train operation that action never happens.
No, obviously I didn't make the point of my comment clear - it's not the loco driver having complete control that brings forth the "slot car driver" comment. It is the because you feel the need to be able to drive anywhere and everywhere on a layout at any moment. You can't do that on the prototype, which is entirely limited to a single pair of rails, which the driver cannot change.
That's nice - however, every railway I have seen has some form of control, separate from the loco driver, that keeps locos/trains apart, with the exception of those times where several locos are formed into groups for the purpose of acting as a single loco. I personally don't see it as an operating advantage to be able to overcome that control, even if the prototype can.
It hardly alters the visual effect of the layout to alter the voltage on the rails - or can you actually see the voltage??? ;-)
Wow!!! The prototype rules I'm aware of do not place any onus on the driver to be responsible for the route selected! An exception to that was in Britain up to and including the early part of the 20th century where the driver read the signals in relation to the route he expected to follow, but there's always an exception.
You're now asking an awful lot of a loco driver!
The position of turnouts will give exclusive right most of the time.
You're describing slot car emulation of the supermarket car park to me! A shunting/switching loco driver does not just aim at an item of rolling stock three tracks over, make a blind rush for it and then drag it four tracks over etc without reference to any other movements taking place in the parking lot.
OK, you're definitely in DCC territory.
Decoders for an instant change-over of a 100+ loco fleet is expensive, particularly as we are now on about the third generation of decoder. 15 x 100 x 3 = $45,000- Considering the fact that there are only minimal advantages to such a conversion for me, that's a lot of hobby budget down the drain!
I fit and repair decoders - a malfunctioning decoder at an exhibition puts a loco out of commission for the remainder of the day.
Regards, Greg.P.
My decoders have to travel 8-12,000 miles over sea before meeting our Customs department. (sounds of numerous cash registers ringing) Effectively I have to have a spare one of every type in my spares/repair box, or be prepared with at least one extra loco of every type (a lot where steam is the norm) over the number for analogue.
Regards, Greg.P.
I don't know of any difference in uncoupling between DCC and analogue control? Certainly it is theoretically possible to equip each item of rolling stock with individual uncouplers in DCC, but recognition of each address to achieve that would require someone to be right there with a magnifying glass to read off the two running numbers and then input to a keyboard to achieve uncoupling (hopefully). I can't even remember a telephone number from a chance meeting in the street until I get home, so DCC address uncoupling isn't going to work for me!
Regards, Greg.P.
According to whom? Specify what has changed.
DC block control is an invention of model railroaders brought about by the physical characteristics and limitations of the technology. It has no more a prototype counterpart than a DCC decoder does.
When locomotives are powered via the running rails, and that current is isolated by each signal at stop, then block control will be a model of a railway operating block. Until then...
That be the case in the Shaky Isles, although I doubt it, but in every loco depot I've ever worked in or visited, it was common. Still is.
Exactly. Here in NSW the operational testing is performed by the signallers, with the engineers in attendance.
My safewoking qualifications are specific to the railway in NSW. There is a movement towards uniform safeworking qualification in all Australian states.
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 07:04:11 +1300, Gregory Procter wrote:
wrote:
If you mean "blocks" as in sections of track, the movement over which is governed by signal indication, then it makes sense. In the context of electrically controlled sections in which the current is manipulated by a control point it does not.
I have already said that the DCC decoder electronically places the 87* times too large engine driver inside the locomotive unit. A DCC decoder can also be thought of as emulating an onboard computer that communicates with a control station through the rails, radio, or in the case of an electrified railroad, through the power transmission medium via a carrier signal. In any case the control takes place inside the locomotive unit, not by manipulating the current on the rails.
Perhaps it did, but the London Underground Postal Railway is a bit of minutia that doesn't need to enter into this discussion. It was highly atypical and was an isolated world unto itself. Dredging the channel for these bits is what makes trying to have a reasoned discussion with you about anything so exasperating. You hold these small exceptions up as if they were the norm, which they are not. It would help if you would not do that. They are really irrelevant unless you model the London Underground Postal Railway. Do you?
No, that holds true at all times in all situations. The locomotive unit will do whatever the driver tells it to do. No one outside the locomotive can control it in any way or override the engine driver's commands. Safe and correct operation of the locomotive is his duty and responsibility.
I don't understand your point regarding "serious" here. I cannot imagine a more serious group of railway modelers that my coterie. Many of us, myself included, are currently, or have been railway employees in the operating department and the Signal and Communications department. One of our group is a retired trainmaster cum Division Superintendent. Believe me, G. Procter, we really do know how the prototype operates. We adopted DCC as quickly as we possibly could precisely because it allows the model railway to almost perfectly emulate the way the prototype operates without limitation.
That is true for the model also.
And here is where you are making a fundamental error. It is not what I do. I wish I could see inside your mind to get a glimpse of what you are imagining, but it doesn't sound like you really understand what others and I am talking about here. I've already told you that we are not children playing trains. We do not dash about without reason or purpose like drivers at bumper cars. Ours is a highly structured environment with nearly anal attention to prototypical operating details.
Here again is a statement that puzzles me. "There is absolutely no need for me to have control over the parallel tracks while my loco isn't there." You do not have control of any tracks at all, but you know that if you know how DCC operates. You have control over your locomotive and that is all, but you know that so why did you say what you did?
Do you think that I manhandle my locomotives and move them from track to track by picking them up by hand? Anathema! Nothing could be farther from the reality of it. In the real world a locomotive can drive anywhere and everywhere at any moment within the structure of the physical plant on which it is operating. What are you thinking here? Are you having visions of Brownian motion trains on our layouts? Forget that. Such is not the case. Being able to drive anywhere and everywhere on a layout at any moment is a condition enabled by having a constant, unvarying power source on the rails that is neither polarity nor amplitude dependent. It is simply another way to say that any locomotive unit can operate on any track at any time as required or instructed without regard to the operation of any device or system other than the engine driver's handheld unit. It does not imply random and gratuitous movement of equipment. That being said, if you desire to operate a CTC railroad there is no restriction placed on that desire by DCC. Two of the railroads in my group are CTC/DCC. We find that the use of DCC makes the railroad easier to operate than electrical power routing and control. It operates more like a real railroad where the engine driver is responsible to know and obey signal indications. He is not required to pay any attention to routing his power and operating his electrical blocks in order to get his charge over the road. The signal goes clear and the train proceeds. There is no need for a computer, although you can use one if you wish. There is no need for automatic electrical block operation such as T. Flynn discusses. In fact, there is no need for anything other than the circuitry to sense the presence of a train and operate the signals.
DCC can be enabled to prevent a train from passing a stop signal and override the commands of an inattentive or stupid engine driver. The capability is already there. You just have to read about how to make it work because none of my group use it, nor have we ever seen the need to.
Most of the time it is not a problem, but once in a while an operator in a "tower" will make a mistake and set the route incorrectly. The engine driver should surely know where he wants to go and should surely know when he comes upon a route incorrectly set. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Almost always in the yards and slow-moving urban interchange locations. I have never seen a mainline route mis-set, simply because the conditions for creating the error do not exist as they do in congested areas.
Which is, I believe, the same thing I said earlier. We do not behave that way either. If we have any further "reasoned discussion" on this topic, you need to forget about slot cars. No one operates "slot cars" and no one operates in a helter-skelter toy train manner. In my group, every train that runs has a reason for running and every move that is made in the yards has a reason for being made and is coordinated with other jobs working within the area. The major difference is that we are not limited or restricted in any way by the artificial boundaries imposed by electrical blocks, and we do not have the need to expend any effort or time to learn how to work-around those limitations or how to operate the operating system. Such is the true beauty of DCC. You operate your trains, not your track.
Regards, Obnoxious Pratt.
MT> I believe another poster answered that:
MT> "There is no full size prototype railroad in the world upon which MT> the MT> trains are controlled by routing electrical current to the tracks MT> and/or varying the amplitude thereof. (...)
Don't know who that genius was, but the info seems to be irrelevant to the question (whether DC control represents railway blocks). There is also no fullsize prototypes which are powered by two isolated rails, which engines cannot work without some digital signal in the mains and which can be radio-controlled remotely. In these limitations DC and DCC are equal.
Just my 2 c worth. Regards, Chuck
If two (or more) locos run on a single short piece of track, they are very soon going to either bump into each other, or run off the end of the track! (or both)
So you know about "Safeworking" in NSW but you are in exactly the same situation as I am as far as the rest of the world is concerned - glad we sorted that point out.
Or follow each other out onto the main line and the Transcontinental network of rails...
Really, Greg, what does this automatic gainsaying of every comment net you? Or is your view really that limited?
I mentioned "... prototype..." in the sentence - that pretty well takes us out of the "electrically controlled sections ..."
Sigh - you've placed the control system in the loco - the driver is the one wandering around the aisle with the hand-held.
Agreed.
Agreed.
There's always an exception :-)
No I don't. Do you somehow think that you are less exasperating when you hold forth on drivers/computers/... being inside the model loco?
The loco follows the single line of rails - it will not leap to another line of rails whether the driver exhorts it, kicks it, whips it or just cajoles it. The one exception is that you can drive it through a set of trailing points set the other way, but in that situation you will short your entire DCC layout while in analogue one shorts only one or two cabs.
That's rather like analogue cab control!
You know _your_ prototype.
That's one of the reasons I rejected DCC.
(in either
So why do you want to be able to run your loco on other tracks at the same time?
What I can't see is why you're making the point that your loco can run anywhere on your layout
- mine only run on the line allocated to them. If there is another train on the same line then the line is divided into blocks and no two trains can be allocated the same (prototype) block.
track, and on
Sure, I might
On my layout I have control of the effective voltage on each section of track - it's called analogue control. Any and all locos placed on those particular sections of track are controlled by the relevant cab. If I want to be able to control my loco on any section of track anywhere on the layout then I connect all blocks/sections to that cab and I can drive my loco wherever you randomly place it. But because all locos on the layout would run, I disconnect all sections/blocks other than those that align with the section my loco is standing on. This is not a matter of throwing multitudes of switches, it is a matter of using electrically operated switches operated in parallel with turnouts.
layout at any
single pair of
I guessed that you didn't. :-) In that case, you need only the capability to operate your loco along the route set for it and nowhere else - we're equal! (so far :-)
Good, we're reaching common ground! So why are you touting the ability to operate elsewhere as being some useful advantage?
I was beginning to wonder what your trains can do! Of course there are those rubber tyred, rail wheeled industrial shunters that can wander between tracks in addition to marshalling stock in small yards - they wouldn't work well on my system!
My trains follow the rails allocated to them! There is no point in giving speed instructions via other routes.
OK, there's my first problem - I can't see all the signals because I am not in the driver's cab.
Nor am I.
Ditto.
I use one for the cost savings and the added capabilities it brings.
Automatic electrical block operation is no more complex than DCC. A major advantage of DCC is that it cuts down the number of wires required to operate accessories such as turnouts and signals (and block relays)
separate from
That's ok, I know how to use the capability - it wasn't there when I first started with DCC.
I see your point, but the driver would most likely notice _after_ taking the wrong route.
My mainline is congested.
three tracks
reference to
What slot cars? 8^)
Good, it sounds like you know what happens on real railways!
OK, now picture a double track main line divided into signal blocks little longer that the trains normally operated over it. As each block is cleared by the train leaving it a following train is cleared to move forward. The aim is to keep each train moving at a steady pace rather than stopping and starting for each signal. The motive power is a mottley collection from ancient to modern steam locomotives and the loco depots task is to ensure each train has sufficient power to maintain that speed under all normal conditions. Throw in assorted express, passenger and commuter trains which should not be delayed. The reality is that I am operating tracks, not trains. I wanted a control system that would allow me to operate as a loco driver, or the signalman, or the dispatcher, or the loco depot foreman, or the yard foreman, or the industrial area shunter ... I wanted the ability to operate with a group, or alone or even for ten minutes when I want a little peace from the world. I compared the capabilities of DCC and analogue for my needs and concluded that loco driving wasn't any real advantage on the main line and in fact added complexities over analogue. The yard is a different matter, hence the intended DCC cab.
Regards, Greg.P.
Gregory Procter wrote: >
Sigh.
No Greg, they are not. They are both under the control of competent drivers, and in many cases a man on the ground - the shunter.
Have you never seen two locos travelling separately, but in the same direction, follow each other out of the depot and head for different parts of the same yard? I have.
Have you never seen two locos travelling in opposite directions converge and stop close by each other at a fuelling point? I have. And after being fuelled, they leave in the same manner they arrive...
I seriously wonder about you, Greg - are you simply being obtuse for the sake of it, or do you really have so little experience of the prototype?
Fair enough. Mine would get tangled on the turntable.
Fair point.
Try finding a third option.
Gregory Procter wrote: >
No, Greg, we are not in the same situation.
One, I made the effort to learn about US operating rules and regulations, by obtaining and studying a copy of the Consolidated Code of Operating Rules.
Two, I obtained and studied a copy of the operating rules of my main prototype, the NKP.
Three, When visiting the USA I sought the advice and guidance of railroad operating men and women who had actual experience of the safeworking systems.
So, yes, I know about US safeworking, as it is one of the most interesting aspects of US railroading.
Not that I make any claim to be an expert - I'm always willing to learn from those who are.
As for safeworking systems elswhere in the world, if the railway has some UK heritage, the systems are essentially the same as those used in the UK/Australia. Often only the local terminology differs. So kindly don't assume that I share your lack of knowledge.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.