Trix Express 3 rail uses/used the two track rails as independent circuits and the center rail as a common. If you turn the loco end for end you change controllers. The models are still in production. (in small numbers)
The descriptions I hear regarding DCC suggest that it is operated in a manner more appropriate to road vehicles than to railways which require systems other than the loco driver's vigilance to keep the train from colliding with others and with incorrectly set turnouts etc. This is the difference between operating a model railway and operating a model train. Apparently Terry Flynn and I are the only modellers (here) actually operating model railways. (I never mentioned _racing_ slotcars)
I'm not saying very much at all about DCC - what I have said is that DCC is not the best option over analogue control in every instance.
(repeat from above) The descriptions I hear regarding DCC suggest that it is operated in a manner more appropriate to road vehicles than to railways which require systems other than the loco driver's vigilance to keep the train from colliding with others and with incorrectly set turnouts etc.
OK, I guess that makes three of us operating to proper railway rules! ;-)
I don't see any great difference: You assign your controller to a specific loco - I assign my controller to a specific block which contains my specific loco. From there on we operate in exactly the same manner. If you have two locos at the head of the train then you have to either call both or change both to an MU address - I still call up the specific block.
In my opinion those clearance cards are a form of "block" working in that they separate the trains to their own section of track. You don't run another train into that section so that you avoid collisions.
If you're operating a safety system that keeps trains separated by reasonable means other than operator/driver vision then you've moved beyond slotcars. Real trains aren't stopable within sight distance other than perhaps on the Nulabour Plains in Australia so railways generally don't rely on the driver to avoid collisions. Railways generally don't rely on the driver to set the routes either. If you are expecting/relying on the driver to avoid collisions and to set routes then you're playing slotcars, not operating a model railway.
Regards, Greg.P.
of your loco and type it into
type it into the keyboard.
That's not totally correct. I run DC without a computer and do no more button pushing or switch throwing than an equivalent DCC layout.
turnouts and block relays.
hardware. I'm not an electronics
layout specific componentry.
or DCC control.
prototypical block system.
operating functions/parameters
through a function address.
the track. That would resolve
badly due to varying braking
operation of the main line, with yard
DC operation. No-ones seems
coupled together - the only
on/off would eliminate most of
Why bother? Throwing a block switch is easier than punching allot of push buttons.
circuits - DCC signals over-riding DC
compatible rather than to start a
Greg, QSI has already got DC/DCC decoders in RTR locomotives which use a non NMRA /NEM DCC standard protocol when in DC.
them, then DCC is for you. If your prototype is otherwise then analogue may be better suited to your needs.
No one said it can't be don using DCC. I suspect your layout operation description is nothing more than another Mark Newton fairy story. Let's see, you claim each train on you friends layout has a three man crew. Must get crowded if a train crosses at the loop, six people for 2 trains. Most layouts I know of use 1 train crew per train, except when banking at the rear, then it's 2 drivers. Now I will describe how a real DCC layout I have operated on incorporated staff working. The owner decided safe working was required because using DCC drivers will do as they like without lots of rules. On his layout the single line block could not be seen by drivers from either end. He used a plug for the staff. To enter the block, the staff needed to be plugged in otherwise the signal would not indicate go. The staff plug also completed the circuit for a small isolating section. Another isolation section was at the other end. Worked well.
In England they called that Trix Twin. There were little plugs to determine which side of the engine power was picked up from. Older s/h Trix didn't have this capability and were regular 3-rail like Hornby.
And of course they only worked that way on Trix track which had a plastic base. On Hornby track they were just like a regular 3-rail engine.
I never liked 3-rail because it didn't look right. Funnily enough older O-gauge often had outside 3rd rail. I didn't mind that because BR Southern Region had it, and also ran steam on those routes
I use the computer because I use route control with interlocking - the software is easier to write than to set up the actual interlocking equipment as hardware. I'm a Luddite, remember ;-) I use the computer and relays rather than simpler on/off switches for sub-blocks because there is no actual "control panel" on the layout. I found that drilling holes for switches in the monitor screen seemed to reduce it's operation a little bit.
Because I run multiple steam locos on most trains I want speed tabling and EMF control per loco - if I'm going to do that then I might as well add every conceivable feature. As the sub-block switches are the last non-prototypical electrical operating part of my analogue system I'd like to eliminate them just in case Mark comes by for a look!
Do they retain the speed tabling and EMF control in DC mode? Who is QSI? (I'll Google that one myself) Can they cope with PWM analogue track power? (I rely on 15v/12v pulse power for train lights on/off at constant brightness)
Absolute bollocks, Gregory. Were you a senient being, I could show you dozens of operating layouts, DCC controlled, that are far more than "playing slotcars". But for some reason you persist in this argument, forcing the knowledgeable among us to straighten out this thread for posterity. I know I can't change your mind, mired in cement as it is, but there may be people who research the subject in the future who want the truth, not your cockeyed version.
Is it possible we are speaking the same language? When we operate model railroads, we must observe signals and take appropriate action with regard to the aspect and indication thereof. If we are running under timetable and train order control, we must proceed by authority of the right, class and direction associated with that train
All of these situations take place just as they do on the prototype being modeled. With few exceptions these railroads we model do not have external methods of controlling trains. They all require an engine crew who is able to read, see and react to the current situation, according to their clearance and with due regard to the rulebook. When we operate these railways, we are the engine crew, and are responsible for maintaining separation, just as the crew on the prototypes must do.
Perhaps railways means something different? I would have guessed that railway, railroad and train, when used with the adjective 'model', would have all meant essentially the same thing. Apparently your interpretation is somehow different. I wish you could clear up this confusion.
manner more appropriate to road vehicles than to railways which require systems other than the loco driver's vigilance to keep the train from colliding with others and with incorrectly set turnouts etc. This is the difference between operating a model railway and operating a model train. Apparently Terry Flynn and I are the only modellers (here) actually operating model railways.<
The latest issue of the Warbonnet (SFRH&MS mag) is devoted to the Santa Fe during W.W.II. Reading it might give some an idea of how dense the RR traffic was during '43 etc. One sentence says; "By May 1942, freight trains were operating on "streetcar headway" over Cajon Pass". The block of Cajon are easily researchable so we know that there was more than one train per block under this density. Those wanting to understanding traffic density on US roads in say "43 needs to read this mag. The point to this is that during this time period across the US there were many trains in the same block as density wouldn't allow it any other way. And this is not an unusual way for US road to operate under certain conditions. Maybe in another country/s things are different but not in the US!
You're a couple of days late on this one Mr. Flynn. We have already debunked the need for a DCC function traction on/off switch. Once you stop, you stay stopped until you tell that address to move again. You can move a loco out onto a ready track and sequentialy drive as many more locos onto that same piece of track as you wish and couple them together until you have a locomotive consist built the way you want it. Then, you merge them all into a single address and drive away with the lot, all acting as one. I am not going to argue with you about how many buttons you do or do not have to push. Such an argument is juvenile and pointless. By your reasoning, two tin cans and a string is a better telephone because its cheaper, does exactly the same thing, and has fewer button pushes required. Hogwash!
Regards, Obnoxious Pratt.
gone fully DCC I would be on my
How do you figure that? I am still running decoders that I have had since I got my first one in 1995. There is no need to periodically upgrade decoders. Where did you get that idea?
track is hidden?
countryside.
You can't if you are trying to run a dozen trains simultaneously alone. You need other operators. Otherwise you need to have an automated system. THAT moves you out of the mainstream and into a special category. If that is the case, and you have an automated system designed for one man operation, you should have so stated two years ago and not participated in this exchange. You are wasting my time and yours with pointless exchanges. DCC has no significant advantage in a one man, automated operation.
The same to you. Obnoxious Pratt
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:35:39 +1300, Gregory Procter wrote:
No, they are not. You are thinking of track warrants which are a form of block operating. In our milieu, a clearance card is the instrument that gives identity to a locomotive so that it may operate as an identified train on the timetable. It also lists the train orders, if any, that are to be delivered to that train. Once a crew receives the clearance card and any orders, they proceed on the time of the train listed in the timetable that corresponds to the identity on the clearance card. All trains have varying degrees of superiority depending on class and direction. It is the responsibility of an inferior train to keep out of the way of a superior train. In territory other than CTC or remote control, this is the responsibility of the engine driver and crew. There are typically meeting points shown in the timetable, but these are seldom adhered to. Usually there will be a train order specifying a meeting point which may, or may not, be the one shown on the timetable. It is a very flexible system that has worked very well for more than a century. The engine driver and crew must be aware of the times of any superior trains and must not occupy the main line from five minutes before the time one is due, until it arrives. Train orders supersede timetable information so that an inferior train running late is not frozen in place, but can proceed by train order to other designated meeting places with superior trains. This is not, however, a form of block operating. Train orders are used in signaled as well as unsignaled territory. They are typically not used very much in CTC or remote control territory.
A track warrant is issued by a control station and gives an engine the authority to occupy a defined section of the railway for a specific time. This may be used for through movements moving from one place to another, or it may be used to give a local job access to the main line to do some work. Clearance cards and track warrants are completely different things.
Here we do. Not all roads are CTC or remote control.
I guess that we are operating prototype railways as slot cars then, because the driver and ground crew are responsible to know where they are supposed to go and expected to know how to get there. The driver and crew are likewise responsible to avoid collisions, not by sight operating, but rather by knowledge of, and obedience to the operating rules. If you learn and play by the rules, you will not have nearly so many bad things happen to you. This is the same set of parameters we use in operating our model railways as well. No slotcars here, just an earnest attempt to operate as realistically as possible within the limitations of a model railway. The entire group is in complete agreement that using DCC has made this more perfectly attainable than ever before. The most vocal proponents of the system are the professional railroaders in the group. Several of whom are currently engine drivers, several more employed in various other capacities and several more who are retired from active duty. I suppose these fellows should know how to operate a railroad, wouldn't you say?
Regards, Obnoxious Pratt
Interesting... I wonder what Canadian Pacific is running out there... No lights... Conductor has to get out and throw switches...
And they even have to listen to the radio in order to figure out where the train they are running behind is at...
Donald
They were related companies before WWII. The mechanisims were common until the
1950s.
The older Trix needed the rail collector shoes unscrewed and moved to the opposite side of the chassis.
The track went through several upgrades over the years, first to fiber sleepers and rolled tinplate rail and then to plastic with proper rails.
That might be the extra rail! ;-)
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:05:23 +1300, Gregory Procter wrote:
You misunderstood what was being said here. The crew of the train is not responsible for ensuring that all the turnouts along the route are properly lined in front of them, they are expected to operate their own turnouts when and where ever needed, but not before they arrive. A train that is to go into a crossing loop is expected to arrive and line its own turnouts into the loop and then line them back to the main line again when in the clear. A train that is to take a diverging route is expected to arrive, line its own turnouts to the diverging route, and then line them back again when it is in the clear. The crew is expected to know that they are to take the diverging route to reach their intended destination. There is no one to guide tham and hold their hand. They are expected to know the road and how to use it.
It is not the responsibility of the crew following to maintain a ten minute spacing. Here you misunderstood again. It is the responsibility of any train operating in conditions under which it might be overtaken, to provide protection for following trains by indicating its presence. This is straight out of the North American Consolidated Code. Rule 99 which you can read at your leisure on the internet, so I will not write it all here. If you elect not to do this, then you are uninformed by choice. The ten minute window is simply the burning time of a standard fusee such that a train finding a burning fusee in the gauge knows that less than ten minutes has elapsed since it was placed and that a train is ahead nearby. Only the most stupid fool would continue to run at full speed in such a situation. Even if the engine driver did, another member of the crew would take action to slow the train. We are not mindless robots. if, after slowing, no more burning fusees are seen, then headway is restored. If after resuming speed, more fusees are sighted, then appropriate action must be taken. If there is a crew member standing with the fusee then a full stop is required. When properly flagged, a disabled train does not pose a danger to a following one. Dropping burning fusees on a model railway is not a very good idea in any scale smaller than 4 inch scale, so an alternate method must be found when a model train is delayed in dark territory. Frequently this means one operator communicating with the following one that he is having difficulty. It is one of the limitations of model railways regardless of the OS used. It does not, however, equate with running slot cars.
Regards, Obnoxious P.
incorrectly set
You have signals? That would imply blocks.
How can an engine crew maintain separation? You cannot stop a train from normal operating speed within the distance that you can clearly see - that would be slotcar operation.
Railway and Railroad are the same thing - both terms are or were used in the USa. Train is not the same as Railway/Railroad.
OK, so safety was abandoned for capacity!
gone fully DCC I would be on my
The first decoders I started with were simple 14 speed step decoders, some with, some without functions and 80 addresses. The second series were 28 step with two functions.
128 speed steps, Faulhaber coreless motor compatibility _or_ EMF feed back control.track is hidden?
countryside.
Well no, that is a fairly normal way to operate a model railway.
So why didn't you say so two years ago when people here were recommending beginners go straight to DCC?
Actually Greg has sad tat several times and implied it many more, if you didn't pick up on it its your mistake not Gregs, and as for time wasting, it takes two to Tango Keith
Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
I assumed from the name that it was a card to signify clearance (to operate)
OK, I can follow that.
How does the operator of an inferior train know where the superior train is?
It can't be, the train operator has no overall view of the other traffic on the line.
Err - ok.
I assume you mean _timetable_ times as it is patently obvious the train driver can't know where any other trains are.
There has to be a dispatcher (whatever label is applied) providing these train orders.
Whatever name you want to give to the sections of track from meeting place to meeting place, they are a form of "..... operating" because you don't allow two trains to enter from opposing ends. If you allow two trains to run in the same direction they have no safety system to keep them separated.
Perhaps I should say "section" instead of "block" in future.
Sure - I was mislead by the name.
means other
Australia so
generally don't
I assume you're refering to route setting.
Trains generally follow the rails - if there are lots of routes then the chances of mistakes are high. If there are only a small number of possible routes branching at remote places then I suppose it is reasonable to have the crew throw the points.
If you have multiple trains in a section how can one train crew know where the other trains are?
When you're driving a train you really don't want any bad things happening to you!
After reading what you've written I'm beginning to doubt it!
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.