Re: Number of electrical blocks?

Loading thread data ...

I operate using a NEC controller using 4 digit addresses to identify the NSW locomotives which have a 4 digit number on their sides, and thousands of DCC users around the world do the same.. Using a 2 digit address would mean identifying locomotives would be nightmare on a large layout with many locomotives. An unbelievable lie from you Mark. Why do we have all the 4 digit address decoders on the DCC market? Your knowledge of operating DCC is exposed again as very limited or you are simply a compulsive liar.

You clearly have never used a high end DCC system. Stick with the simple system Mark, 4 digits is a challenge for you. The rest of us have no trouble counting to 10.

I state it because it is true, otherwise you would refute the statement with appropriate experience or qualifications. Your knowledge on DCC is limited to using a system, clearly a basic system. Check out title of the thread which includes Mark Newton in the heading in aus.rail. Rude word warning!!

Reply to
Terry Flynn

If one is trying

Its necessary if you want to operate a DC system realistically.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

And!?

Are you simultaneously operating more trains than your DCC handheld can stack? How long do you typically operate that one train before switching to the next?

Rejecting DCC because you have to push a few buttons is nonsense.

Paul

Reply to
Paul Newhouse

Terry, I realise by now that you're not very bright, so I'll type slowly so you can follow the discussion easily.

Using a 2-digit address is quite practical on a small layout, with a small roster of locos. Not everyone has a layout the size of the SCG, with hundreds of locos in service simultaneously. Another straw man.

Many railroads and railways did not use 4-digit numbers to identify locomotives, so does that mean, by your reckoning anyone modelling these roads cannot use DCC?

And do try to remember, I already know how NSW locos are numbered post

1924. One of the unneccessary modifications I made to 4908 was to put chromed metal numerals on it.

And it's , not .

Well, the owners assured me it was a high end system, reckon they must be lying too, eh? But I'm glad to hear that you've learned to stop counting on your fingers when you reach 10.

Of all the contributors to this NG, only you would think it possible to refute a statement with "qualifications".

Precisely. My knowledge of DCC based on using as system, pure and simple. Whether or not it is basic or not is a matter of opinion, and of no interest to me. What is of interest to me is that I can use all of features incorporated in the system without knowing anything at all about electronics, how the thing works, or why. I don't give a f*ck. Your continual derogatory remarks about my experience with DCC only serve to confirm my position that your primary objection to DCC is based on your elitist attitude to the hobby, and other modellers. But that's all right, no-one else gives a f*ck, either.

Mate, how old are you? Next you'll be threatening to tell Mummy. I supppose she still has you sleeping on rubber sheets?

Mark Newton.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Terry Flynn does.

Nah, nothing elitist about attitude...

Your pronouncements suggest otherwise...

What is there to argue? I prefer DCC to DC, there's no technical argument needed or wanted. Mind you, actual from Terry is largely ignored in favour of "I'm right, you're not qualified to comment" diatribes. See above.

Mark Newton.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Beep! Beep! Irony alert!

Sounds more like DCC was too hard for you to master. And the cost comparison is a furphy, as has already been pointed out.

Both statements concerning the NSWGR are true, which is something of a first where Terry is concerned. But neither is particularly relevant. The NSWGR was a colonial railway until 1901, and with the best will in the world, was not among the great innovators. As for cultural cringe, I suspect that's a phrase he read somewhere, and has been dying to use. There isn't a railway anywhere I don't find interesting, including the NSWGR.

Now here is a classic example of why Terry should limit his pronouncements to subjects he may actually know something about, or at least those where he can bluff convincingly.

Unfortunately, this isn't one of them.

The NSW tramway system commenced operations in 1879, a time when I suspect there were precious few street traffic lights to control them. There was, however, staff and ticket working for single lines, and this was brought into use quite early on. A good example of this was the line from Taronga Zoological Park to Athol Wharf, which was partly on reserved track, as were many sections of the tramway.

Facing points at busy junctions were interlocked and protected by signals - the functioning of which largely conformed to existing railway practice - which were operated from signal boxes. In the Sydney metropolitan area, a maximum of 31 signal boxes were in use in 1938. Signalling and staff safeworking were also used on isolated lines away from the main system, in particular where they crossed or interchanged with adjacent railway lines.

Another display of ignorance from Terry Flynn.

Beep! Beep! Beep! Irony alert! Irony alert!

Mind you, with the current generation of "plug and play" on the market, I don't even need to solder a few wires! I love it!

Mate, how many posts to this, and other NGs, would you like me to quote? You know, all those posts where you unequivocally state that your method of operation is the only prototypical way to run a NSWGR layout? Don't you remember your own bullshit? Do you need some help?

Well, I'll cry myself to sleep tonight, knowing that.

Mark Newton.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Still waiting for you to cite the paragraph in the relevant Metrop or Coast Local Appendix that specifies this.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Would that be the thread where I paid out on the crossposting spammer, or the one where I paid out on the graffitti vandal?

Check out any thread in aus.rail that includes Flynn, and see everybody pay out on him.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Mark does not understand this.

His usual trick. He is also lying about US railroads. There are plenty of signalled railroads in the US using safe working systems similar to our own. For example the NSW automatic upper quadrant signals were based on US technology of the day.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

Not everything that is done on the railway needs a specific rule formally written down and you should know this. Also you should know that there are numerous locations where locomotives have never been uncoupled or coupled together simply because there has never been a reason to do so. The fact is for any given yard, there are logical practical positions were locomotives are attached, they did not attach in a random pattern. . Observation of the prototype, not the local appendix is where you find this information.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

No digital, All analogue. No decoders, just a capacitor in series with the light globes.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

I could write it more simply .... Hmmmm, no, I can't!

Our Wellington region signals on the lines that carry freight to the port and commuters to and from the city used the same US signals until replaced by colour light signals in the late 1950s.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

And, as usual, Flynn has things arse about. The actual signalling equipment was derived from US manufactured equipment, made mostly by Union Switch & Signal. The system of safeworking rules & regs that was used to control trains runnning on these signals - Track Block & Automatic, was purely a NSWGR affair. If Flynn was capable of reading and understanding a document like NORAC, or GCOR he'd be able to comprehend the differences. But then, a quick perusal of either document would show him up for the ignorant and dishonest cretin that he is.

Likewise, the US style around Wellington were not operated using US style . Surely you can make that distinction, Greg?

Yeah, exactly.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Indeed. Local arrangements. These are not rules.

Allow me to refesh your memory.

If there is no reference in the LA or any other safeworking document, then there are no "location specific rules" to prevent a particular action taking place. Another pissweak excuse.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Certainly, I have the NZR regulations manual on my bookshelf - the signals were largely "automatic" to obtain the best practical traffic density. The specific system of operation was US developed.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

In that case, read up on US safeworking, compare it to NZ safeworking, and note the differences.

Cheers,

Mark.

Reply to
Mark Newton

May I assume that you have already read the NZR regulations and have noted the differences to the relevant US regulations?

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

You may. :-)

Cheers,

Mark.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Caught out again Mark, US signals, track circuits, same technology, same principle, one train, one block. NSWGR basically used the rules of the UK board of trade in the steam era. The US was using the same principle, one train per automatic block. A common principle used around the world for many automatic block systems.

Still one train for each automatic block. Same basic principle used around the world.

Qualified at what? Following rules of one specific railway, that's all. No signal design engineering qualifications. Simply a former system user, employed at a low grade, pretending to be a international railway signal expert.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

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.