RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 15, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 15, 2018 BASINGSTOKE 1958-67 Basingstoke target.jpg Basingstoke's first show: Lleida Spain. THIS WEEKENDS SHOW (10/11 MARCH)- NOW ON - FIRST PICTURES Lleida show Basingstoke (01).jpg Above: The combined Basingstoke and Museum stand with a small 13ft section of the layout in the foreground, and the Museum section behind. Our stand forms the end of a run of stands so we get the advantage of being viewed from three sides. The "Boss" talking to the "Models Cut" owner (Laser cut wood buildings in HO) in red jacket, who also had a trade stand at our museum open weekend last October Lleida show Basingstoke (03).JPG Above: Just after the show opened this morning at 10.00am. Lleida show Basingstoke (04).JPG Above: A better angle on the left hand board which forms the section between Lichfield and Popham No1 tunnels. This actually disguises a part of the Fiddle Yard immediately behind. Lleida show Basingstoke (05).JPG Above: The second baseboard to start receiving scenery in a bit of a rush this week. Didn't quite get finished before "the boys" turned up to cart it away to the show. However considering I was "at it" until 01.30hrs on three days. I am fairly pleased with what I have managed to achieve in the time. As it was just bare baseboard and track last Monday ! Lleida show Basingstoke (06).JPG Above; The new scenery, being basically a lump of a hill to cover the entrance to "Lichfield tunnel". The left hand "Down Line" to Southampton is just breasting its 1 in 100 climb up from Worting Junction. While the right hand track stays almost on the level so it can pass over "Battledown Flyover" This board is 2m (6ft 6in) long by 850mm (2ft 8in) wide. The hill took 4 x Daily Telegraph newspapers stripped up and plastered over either fine green garden plastic mesh or polystyrene, depending on the location. This was quickly painted with a waterbased brown "earth" paint. I just managed to add a bit of greenery over the tunnel mouth, and start on the tunnel abutment walls. lleida show Basingstoke (08).JPG Above: Virtually the whole section taken to the show. Lleida show Basingstoke (10).JPG Above: This board was also wired up this week, which includes a hidden Peco large radius point in the tunnel, complete with Fulgarex motor. It and the other Board have been temporarily wired to a "Gaugemaster" Double track controller so I can at least shunt a train back and forth on each track. As seen my NEW "Kernow Models" Class 02 0-4-4T and two coach "Gate set". The loco and carriages are running beautifully, and the coreless motor in the loco provides a little "run on" so I have to be careful not to crash into the wooden "buffer stop" I screwed to the end of the board to prevent anything going straight on the floor ! Lleida show Basingstoke (12).JPG Above: My Bachmann 2EPB 2-car EMU unit which I intentionally took along, as the track between the tunnels has already got 3rd rail. This as I suspected has caused a lot of questions. The Spanish can't believe that 3rd rail could possibly be used out in the countryside (only on a underground Metro system), as the Spanish have no lineside fences and wander across railway tracks as if they are public footpaths !!! Lleida show Basingstoke (13).JPG Above: Another shot of the 2 EPB, which also reveals the third rail better. The 3rd rail is soldered to Peco brass track nails, these being more sturdy, than the very nice but prone to damage plastic 3rd rail "china pots" they make. Which tend to dissapear the first time you clean the track.... Lleida show Basingstoke + Museum stand (01).JPG Above: This shot reveals the whole stand "Basingstoke" plus the Museums section. With a number of informative displays about the railway that runs through Mora. The table in between has a display of handbuilt pointwork and information about the real Basingstoke, to help Spanish people learn about the layout. As no Spaniard to date has seen handbuilt pointwork, this display is also raising questions, and has already got us at least one new member who wants to learn how to build such things ! Lleida show Museum stand (01).JPG Above: A general shot of the Museums part of the stand. With our Publicity Officier in beige jumper (right) trying to encourage a lady to drag her "hubbie" along for a visit to our Museum. Lleida show Museum stand (02).JPG Above: Another shot of the Museums section, as things began to hot up closer to lunchtime today. The Boss doing my bit !.JPG Above: This is what happens when an inquisitive visitor, who does not speak English, starts asking technical questions, about handbuilt points. The "Boss" has to step in to explain, as my Spanish or Catalan, is not yet up to such explanations.... Trader N scale locomtoive display.JPG Above: Moving off around a part of the show, I first came across this rather nice display of Spanish N gauge locomotives and wagons by one of the traders. The locos inside are from more than one manufacturer. Lleida show Spanish HO station (01).JPG Above: This is a model of a Spanish station south of Barcelona. Just a part of a large Spanish HO layout. However I must point out that the vast majority of layouts present, are a combination of various and sometimes totally different scenes, even different countries in one layout. Each section built by a individual or small group, and combined utilising a common track or tracks at set distances from the Baseboard edge. So quality of each section can vary wildly... Association of Freinds of the Gerona Olot railway.JPG Above: This sign goes with the layout pictures below. A comprehensive group, calling themselves "The association of freinds of the Olot-Gerona Railway" Which was a narrow gauge line from Gerona to Olot near the Pyrennes and now closed. The group has interests in preserving, recording, collecting, modelling, publishing anything relating to this once attractive and British influenced railway. They had for example some very early carriages (around 1870) built by "Cravens" in England. Lleida show Gerona-Olot club HOm layout (01).JPG Above: The Olot-Gerona modelling section of the association mentioned above's HOm scale layout: This being a very nice reconstruction of one of the bridges on the line, complete with some original photos attached to the layout below. Lleida show Gerona-Olot club HOm layout (02).JPG Above; The second HOm picture of the Olot-Gerona railway layout: This being a pretty acurate recreation of one of the stations. Lleida show Gerona-Olot club HOm layout (03).JPG Above; The HOm Olot-Gerona layout again. This being a model of the Locomotive shed at the Gerona end of the line. Lleida show Gerona-Olot club HOm layout (04).JPG Above: Another shot of the HOm layout of the Olot-Gerona Railway, and another of the stations on the line. This layout is the best I have seen so far at this years show, although I haven't had time to see all of them.... Lleida club N gauge layout station (01).JPG Above: This is a part of a large N gauge layout by members of the Lleida Club. Like many layouts at this show, it is a combination of what each member wants to build. Each section can vary in size, quality and scene, and usually bears NO resemblance to the sections either side. The common denominator is, on this layout, two tracks set at fixed distances from the Baseboard viewing side edge. This scene I thought was particularly well designed and built of an ultra modern station. There just happened to be a Swiss EMU in it when I took the photos, but I think the station is based on a Spanish prototype. Lleida club N gauge layout stn (02).JPG Above; Another angle on the Ultra Modern station of this expansive N gauge layout.More of which can be seen behind including the high modern bridge.... Lleida club GWR section of N gauge layout.JPG Above; Again part of the expansive N gauge layout, and a big surprise. A British Great Western Railway section. All the buildings have been scratch built from photos, by a Spanish chap who has never been to Britain. Importantly he has got the basic British "greenery" colouring correct. Not an easy task for someone who lives in a country that is rather dry, rocky and sandy. Lleida show half the central aisle.JPG Above: A shot taken from around the middle of the main hall looking down the Central aisle towards the main entrance. Trade stands on both sides of this aisle. Including official agents for Marklin; Trix; LGB; Fleischmann; Roco; Mabar (a sort of Spanish version of DJ Models); Ibertren; Hornby; Electrotren; Arnold; Noch; and a specialist Spanish RTR Brass manufacturer. Hornby's Spanish main agent.JPG Above: Hornby's Wholesale Agent in Spain had this stand. They are based in Madrid. Their primary interest is of course the "Electrotren HO range" (Hornby's Spanish brand name) and for N scale the Hornby "Arnold" range, which includes Spanish outline items. Lleida show Discount trader..JPG Above: This is simply a picture of a typical retail trader at the show, this one being a bit of a discount specialist. Lleida show Perpignan France club (01).JPG Above: From over the border in French Catalonia. Perpignan to be precise, has come this French HO layout. Again like many of the layouts at this show. It is a combination of totally different scenes including both Spanish and French practice, by each of the members in the group. You build what you like with just one common denominator, and that is the position of the two through tracks and their setting from the baseboard edge. This shot reveals the clubs sign at one end of the layout which clearly reveals a simple and rather sharp loop. With a Spanish "AVE" labelled diesel loco and "Talgo" express. The problem of such layouts is often in their operation..... Lleida show Perpignan France HO layout.JPG Above: Another shot of the French Perpignan Clubs HO layout, with a French steam hauled 4-8-2 "Venice Simplon Orient express" combination. Well that's it for this weekend as I must set off, for the one hour drive at 08.00 in the morning, to get back to the Lleida show..... BR Ferret and Dartboard.gif 71000 Nice to see something from the Perpignan Club where I used to be a member. Had some very good exhibition modules back then including one of Collioure station. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_H Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 ...................................... the next statement beggars belief .... The biggest ADULT male indoor Hobby in Spain is "Playmobil". In every other country an expansive toy aimed at 5 - 10 year olds.. 71000 We had a fairly large playmobil trainset for my children, it was composed of three trainsets with additional track and points. The children would spend an hour or so building the trainset but quickly get board of playing with it unless the budgerigar showed an interest which it quite often did. Ever so funny to see a budgie sat on top of a playmobil train tootling along, of course the kids would get silly and see how fast they could make the train go without the budgie falling off and flying away. We didn't train the bird to do it, it just flew down one day totally out of the blue and proceeded to walk up and down the train while it was going round the track. Anyway, back to Basingstoke, what you are achieving it is very impressive, also you mentioned that you were planning to run a track building demonstration at an exhibition, if you decide to make a pictorial account of that I would be very interested to see how you construct your turnouts. Best regards Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 The reason or at least part of it appears to be the imbecilic schooling system. No practical or Science subjects seem to be taught (Schools don't have the facilities) and even History and Geography are taught as one subject. As kids only go to school from 09.00-12.00 and again from 15.00-16.00 (thanks to Siesta time) there isn't time to train them in virtually anything useful for an adult life. So as the boss of the local DIY store explained "It is unlikely you would even find a screwdriver in the average Spanish house". And as he, the DIY store owner also told me, when I asked for a saw: "You mean those things with the wobbly blades. But everybody knows they don't work so we don't stock them" !!! No disrespect intended, but I do have to wonder why you chose to live in Spain when you obviously have such a low opinion of the Spanish? Still, what do I know? Just speaking as a Brit whose two kids used to go to a Spanish state school (not an English-speaking paid-for school) with a very healthy tech department including carpentry and metalwork. They did a wee bit more than 4 hours each day too. Handy that, as it would have been a pain to drive 20km and collect them for their 3 hour siesta and then take them back again for another hour at school... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
71000 Posted March 15, 2018 Author Share Posted March 15, 2018 (edited) We had a fairly large playmobil trainset for my children, it was composed of three trainsets with additional track and points. The children would spend an hour or so building the trainset but quickly get board of playing with it unless the budgerigar showed an interest which it quite often did. Ever so funny to see a budgie sat on top of a playmobil train tootling along, of course the kids would get silly and see how fast they could make the train go without the budgie falling off and flying away. We didn't train the bird to do it, it just flew down one day totally out of the blue and proceeded to walk up and down the train while it was going round the track. Anyway, back to Basingstoke, what you are achieving it is very impressive, also you mentioned that you were planning to run a track building demonstration at an exhibition, if you decide to make a pictorial account of that I would be very interested to see how you construct your turnouts. Best regards Ian Ian, Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
71000 Posted March 15, 2018 Author Share Posted March 15, 2018 (edited) No disrespect intended, but I do have to wonder why you chose to live in Spain when you obviously have such a low opinion of the Spanish? Still, what do I know? Just speaking as a Brit whose two kids used to go to a Spanish state school (not an English-speaking paid-for school) with a very healthy tech department including carpentry and metalwork. They did a wee bit more than 4 hours each day too. Handy that, as it would have been a pain to drive 20km and collect them for their 3 hour siesta and then take them back again for another hour at school... Pete 75C Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 Pete 75C This is right off topic. Send me a personal message if you want to go down this path. 71000 I'll pass, thanks. Just wanted my opinion on record. Carry on. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
71000 Posted March 15, 2018 Author Share Posted March 15, 2018 (edited) I'll pass, thanks. Just wanted my opinion on record. Carry on. Pete 75C, Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Nick C Posted March 20, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 20, 2018 BASINGSTOKE 1958-67 Basingstoke target.jpg So its back to “Barton Mill” Barton Mill is the name for the carriage sidings at the London end of Basingstoke station, as there is a small river that passes under the railway and rumour has it there was even a mill. So as track laying has now swept around the end of the layout, and reached these carriage sidings, I’m now closing in on the really interesting part of the layout with regards to track. The first indication of this is the carriage sidings themselves, as I am using (SMP) Bullhead track for these and most of the sidings around the station area. (As seen in the accompanying pictures). Having had a 100yds of SMP lounging around in a cupboard for nearly ten years, I thought it about time I used the stuff. It isn’t of course the new Peco Bullhead track. Slightly off-topic, but the mill at Barton's Mill (note the possessive) still exists - it's a pub and restaurant these days... Good to see someone taking on Basingstoke, and impressive that you're doing it virtually all alone, I hardly have time to work on my own tiny layout! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
71000 Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 (edited) Slightly off-topic, but the mill at Barton's Mill (note the possessive) still exists - it's a pub and restaurant these days... Good to see someone taking on Basingstoke, and impressive that you're doing it virtually all alone, I hardly have time to work on my own tiny layout! Nick, Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
71000 Posted March 26, 2018 Author Share Posted March 26, 2018 (edited) STOKE Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
71000 Posted April 1, 2018 Author Share Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) STOKE Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian Smeeton Posted April 1, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 1, 2018 On building points. When it comes to soldering the blades to the tie bar, if you are using the 'moving sleeper' as you have, I have found that making a score with a scalpel or Stanley knife in the copper stops the solder from flowing any further. If the first cut is made in the copper clad, and the first closure rail moved to be in line with the cut, and then a little flux on the INSIDE towards the track centre, then a touch of the iron with a little solder on the tip, the joint is made in seconds and no solder runs to the gap between the closure rail and the stock rail. I find that it works in 2mm scale so should be even easier in 4mm. I use the same scoring method on the copper clad sleepers anywhere where clearance may be an issue. Regards Ian 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) I have followed your amazing layout with interest , we are currently building a O gauge layout 40 feet by 14 , all DCC and MERG CBUS layout bus for points , signals and accessories ( block detection ) . It is designed to be driven entirely to signals as in real life I do not agree with your assessment of DCC, nor do I agree with the price comparisons, for DCC operation only locos need to be fitted with decoders and decoders are available in Europe ( germany ) for 15 euros each , 1950 euros for your 130 locos, in reality thats the only additional cost over DC. also in my opinion fishplates ( more correctly rail joiners, should never carry current , all sections of track , DC or DCC should have droppers ) . In the context of the costs of your large layout , I suspect 2K is a drop in the ocean !! No accessory decoders nor any of the other DCC stuff you mention is actually needed, points and semaphores can be controlled traditionally or using one of the many layout buses available , ( MERG, ROCrail etc,etc ) . irrespective of DC or DCC , on a large layout, using a computer bus to distribute accessory signals make operational , technical and economic sense . IN our case we have " conventional " signal panels and lever frames as the output and input to the layout bus. ( we have 25 baseboards , with only 6 wires , DCC+,DCC - . 12V + , 12v-, CanBusHi, Canbus Lo , between each board , each board will have DCC and 12V short circuit protection with status feedback to a PC collecting diagnostics . what doesnt make sense is miles of DC wiring , ( with inevitably 1000s of connections ) leading to unreliable operation and terrible debugging DCC allows engine drivers to drive to signals and follow track inexact replica of real life , a situation in DC that is difficult to achieve and requires considerable section switching of traction current and even then cant emulate all the prototype correctly ( like stacking locos on a siding etc ) . Thats leaves out the whole section around sound , which is also difficult to do with DC Track occupancy in DCC ,is extremely simple essentially consisting of back to back diode sensing , and is cheaper then any method Ive seen for DCC, DCC offers the potential to emulate real life track occupancy by detecting non powered stock , a situation that is almost impossible in DC.( i.e. just like Real Track Sensing ) I notice you repeated reference to TCC, yet you have not provided any technical description of how TCC works and could you explain how you detect stock in unpowered sections under DC ( i.e. a standing train of only wagons for example ) Also , controlled stops in front of signals are very difficult to do properly in DC , ( simple yes, realistic no) because the you have no individual profile of locos, Hence a deceleration voltage gradient that suits some DC locomotives looks ridiculous in others , The problem being most evident where comparing slow freight to fast expresses. Probably implemented DCC allows deceleration to be tailored to specific locos ( and trains ) and Railcom provides loco ID and real time speed feedback . Again done correctly DCC comes closest in real life in automated stops in front of signals ( and in automated applications of Rule 39(a) ) In my estimation ( and experience ) DC cannot and is unable to emulate real life operation , whereas DCC , set up correctly and implemented fully can come very very close . Note a few comments on your track building , IN real life standard REA semicurved bullhead points ( the most common ) did not have a constant radius through the point ( thats why they are known as semi curved ) , The area the point blades make contact with the " curved stock rail " is actually straight as is the section leading away from the frog. Using a continuos radius is actually incorrect and leads to sharp reverse curves in crossovers Also the prototype never normally filed any sort of " slot " in the stock rail , there is no need to do if the switch blade is filed correctly and in fact the slot generates bad running in many cases , especially where the rail so filed is on an outside radius . I see no point in emulating the deficiencies of PECO points when going to the trouble of building ones own points Also , soldering the magic moving sleeper directly to the points blades does eventually lead to failure as the joint cant pivot as the sleeper moves, a better solution is to solder a pin to the switch blade, going through a hole in the moving sleeper , other methods can be used to hold the blade down I look forward to your updates with interest Dave Edited April 4, 2018 by Junctionmad 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
71000 Posted April 5, 2018 Author Share Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) Dave, Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) I have been building track for years , your description of steam era bullhead points is fundamentally incorrect , I correctly described the most common era bull head point as the used by the majority of pre-nationalised railway companies in Britain . The REA semi curved point does not contain a continuous radius through the point , the area around the switch blade is straight on the “ curved section “ , the exit track from the frog is also essentially straight . You can’t do correctly profiled crossovers using continuous curved points as you generate a very nasty reverse transition , Yes there are fully curved points but thedy have particular specialised uses Equally if you file the switch blade of a bullhead rail correctly , there is absolutely no need file “ notches “ in the stock rail , a practice that evolved from model points and not the prototype. It takes no longer to build a copper clad point properly compared with the emulation of PECO point construction you are suggesting Track can be built quickly and incorrectly or quickly and correctly , which should a competent modeller choose ? , speed is largely a function of familiarity and technique rather then unprototypical shortcuts I urge you to have a look at TEMPLOT and it’s extensive associated resources on building track and it’s description of BRITISH track I have no desire to descend into a DCC versus DC debate , but I posted to counter your “dismissive “approach to DCC , your clearly erroneous DCC versus DC cost comparisons etc , DCC Operation does not require ALL aspects of a model railway to be controlled by a DCC controller and many layouts have simply DCC control of locos and conventional control of points and signals etc. You seem obsessed with AWS style protection , a feature of little consequence on a model railway , since plastic passagners can’t die , depowering a section on track ahead of a signal at danger can be easily done IN DCC as well as dc , however both systems results in “ toy train “ crash stops unlike anything in real life Your description of the the block system is incorrectly applied to typical model railways , absolute block for example does not apply inside station limits , the area most modeled , within these limits , drivers received signals via runnng signals , ground signals and hand signals , they DID “drive to such signals “ ( within the signaling regulations of course ) , you also seem to have overlooked rule 39(a) TCB as it applies to MAS is of course different, but clearly in such cases drivers “ drive to signals “ and largely nothing else , in station areas extensive use of ground signals is used to control “set backs “ and shunting etc. all this has nothing to do with the “ block system “ of signaling. Most modelers rarely ha e the open track to worry about absolute block , or even proper TCB MAS , given the concatenation of length typical of model railways Hence I don’t understand how DC provides any advantages in such situations , and in fact to achieve good automated control of approaching signals at danger is simple to do BADLY in DC and very difficult to do prototypically In DC , In DCC using asymmetric DCC ( which consists of two diodes ) does give bettter and more prototypical slowdown and stop and good implementations like ZImo decoders are very realistic . This type of realism is very difficult to achieve in DC. track occupancy detection systems in DCC because of the presence of a continuous signal even if the loco is stoped is simple and very easily achieved , using any simple current detector , several of which are currently commercially available or Diy versions. DC detection systems , unless very clever , tend to be unable to detect locos not actually running or where sections are unpowered, finally DC Detection of unpowered rolling stock is quite technically complex and rarely undertaken , yet easily done with resistor wheelsets in DCC as all sections , unlike in DC , remain powered up , track detection in the prototype worked for all classes of rolling stock , in motion or stationery , DCC can emulate that relatively easily , section switched DC cannot Your understanding of layout control busses is somewhat sketchy , this has nothing to do with DC or DCC ( DCC is essentially a traction control strategy ) . For large layouts LCBs offer a way to simplify wiring , improve reliability , reduce cost ( wire is expensive ) and reduce debugging and maintenance. It’s facilities the addition of computer aided automation ( full or partial ) which is typically needed on large complex layouts . While common return “can” in many circumstances reduce wiring , it doesn’t reduce the overall complexity of section power switching especially in large layouts. ( Pete Watermans layout uses LCBs extensively for example ) I would urge you to evaluate such technology in a layout of the size you are building ,it’s benefits are clear at that scale. Finally , I have no issue with anyone favoring DC over DCC or vice versa, but I have issues where DCC is presented incorrectly, clearly by someone who doesn’t actually understand it in its totality and makes spurious claims that DC can do things DCC cannot or that DC is “ simplier” anyone who has built big DC layouts , will know the complexity of large scale DC Section switching , requiring considerable wiring complexity , especially where automatic ( ie route based ) section switching is implemented , on large layouts with complex routes or train movements. DCC REMOVES this complexity completely , allowing signal box operation entirely consistent with the prototype and supporting all prototype loco and train movements. In summary For me , given the costs and complexity involved in building and operating large scale complex layouts , I see many advantages in DCC and very very few in DC , and this is bourne out by the predominance of DCC in large layouts in the last 10years , this is leaving aside any debate about LCBs etc. It’s also typically the case that many DCC modelers were once DC modelers and tend to have a realistic understanding of both systems , whereas many proposing DC solutions are often very misinformed about DCC , largely taking their DCC views from third party , hearsay or printed sources rather then direct experience Dave Edited April 5, 2018 by Junctionmad 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) I'm sure you are a serious modeller. So I am also sure you will understand that the best way to replicate real life operation on a "Model Railway" is to copy the methods used by the real railway. So as the real railway couldn't possibly use the DCC system, for no other reason, than it would fail to meet even basic railway safety rules. I can't therefore entertain such a system, regardless of costs. This must be the most misguided comparison and justification against DCC I’ve ever seen , the real railway didn’t use DC To control it’s Locos either. ( nor switch off track power to stop spads or implement AWS or ATP ) You , serously clearly don’t understand DCC at all as it would be properly implemented DCC allows virtually a complete emulation of prototype movement activity , DC does not DCC systems can emulate all the appropriate rail safety systems just like the prototype, DC cannot ( try implementing ATP realistically In DC !!! ) ( toy train depowering of track included ) DCC allow , using simple wiring , full prototypical movement of locos unencumbered by section switching limitations , just like the prototype , DC does not, as allowed movements are a function of the section switching strategy, a strategy that is largely fixed at build time. DCC facilitates REALISTIC automatic slowdown and stop at signals at danger , more advanced implementations can implement rule 39(a) checking of trains , or prototypical MAS speed controlled running , again virtually impossible to achieve realistically with DC DCC allows signaling , and route selection , interlocking , etc to be implemented without concern for DC section switching , since when did a real life signalman or driver have to worry about the track ahead being powered up. DCC even allows protypical SPADs Serously , your statement is based on a complete errorenous understanding of DCC and is quite frankly ridiculous, you base your whole comparison on the simple idea of depowering a track section in DC to give a very crude implementation of AWS , yet exactly the same strategy could be used in DCC and furthermore far better AWS implementation strategies are available in DCC ( for example broadcast to zero controllers , implementing a rapid decleration rather then a toy train DC lock the wheels up stop ) As a concrete example , AWS can be implemented very realistically with a rapid stop ( and not a toy train wheel lockup ) , with zimo or Lenz DCC decoders and two diodes in the track section after the signal. A relay switches in the diodes on a red aspect. Easy peasy By all means compare and contrast , but not on the basis of completely mis-guided partial understanding Edited April 5, 2018 by Junctionmad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denbridge Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 This must be the most misguided comparison and justification against DCC I’ve ever seen , the real railway didn’t use DC To control it’s Locos either. ( nor switch off track power to stop spads or implement AWS or ATP ) You , serously clearly don’t understand DCC at all as it would be properly implemented DCC allows virtually a complete emulation of prototype movement activity , DC does not DCC systems can emulate all the appropriate rail safety systems just like the prototype, DC cannot ( try implementing ATP realistically In DC !!! ) ( toy train depowering of track included ) DCC allow , using simple wiring , full prototypical movement of locos unencumbered by section switching limitations , just like the prototype , DC does not, as allowed movements are a function of the section switching strategy, a strategy that is largely fixed at build time. DCC facilitates REALISTIC automatic slowdown and stop at signals at danger , more advanced implementations can implement rule 39(a) checking of trains , or prototypical MAS speed controlled running , again virtually impossible to achieve realistically with DC DCC allows signaling , and route selection , interlocking , etc to be implemented without concern for DC section switching , since when did a real life signalman or driver have to worry about the track ahead being powered up. DCC even allows protypical SPADs Serously , your statement is based on a complete errorenous understanding of DCC and is quite frankly ridiculous, you base your whole comparison on the simple idea of depowering a track section in DC to give a very crude implementation of AWS , yet exactly the same strategy could be used in DCC and furthermore far better AWS implementation strategies are available in DCC ( for example broadcast to zero controllers , implementing a rapid decleration rather then a toy train DC lock the wheels up stop ) As a concrete example , AWS can be implemented very realistically with a rapid stop ( and not a toy train wheel lockup ) , with zimo or Lenz DCC decoders and two diodes in the track section after the signal. A relay switches in the diodes on a red aspect. Easy peasy By all means compare and contrast , but not on the basis of completely mis-guided partial understanding you are wrong on so many counts. DC DOES allow fully prototypical operation if the control system is well designed. This has been proven by thousands of layouts long before DCC was ever thought of and since. One of my gripes with Dcc is the amount of movements one sees that would never happen on the real railway. Once complete, my layout will be controlled through a correctly interlocked frame. Sure i will need a few isolating switches in the loco yard but no big deal. Im not knocking DCC BUT it is not for me.seen too many digital layouts that operationally destroy the impression of the real thing. But seen afew good ones as well. Why do zealots have to continously ram their chosen control systems down everyones throats? My layouts have always run just like the real thing. That is what matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Simon Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 But in real life engine drivers DO NOT "drive to signals and follow track in exact replica of real life". In real life NO train moves on a RUNNING LINE without first being given a (fixed trackside) signal indication to do so. When Multi-aspect colour light signalling is provided, only ONE train may be between any two signals at any one time. This is known as "Track Circuit Block". On semaphore signalled lines which operate under "Absolute Block" rules. The basic principle is that only ONE train can be on each RUNNING line in the WHOLE area covered by the signalbox. Trains in these areas are therefore NOT allowed to follow each other from signal to signal. No matter how many signals a mechanical box may control on each line. I think that you're getting muddled with your absolute block explanation. The rule of one train between two stop signals (i.e. one track section) still applies in absolute block, with intermediate block signals, trains in absolute block areas can follow each other from signal to signal, as long as the train in front is clear of the overlap or clearance point and it is done using the correct regulations. In theory, a signal box in absolute block area with an intermediate block home signal could have three trains on one running line, one at the Home Signal (brought up to under the warning arrangement, regulation 5 I think), one within 'station limits' and one at the IBS. I know that I'm a MAS designer by trade, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct in the above thinking. Also, technically, you can move along a running line without a fixed signal, using hand signals or verbal authority from the signaller. Equally acceptable is a train stopping with in a track section and starting off again without a fixed signal, it can move up and down as much as it wants as long as it doesn't exceed the limit of its authority (a fixed signal). Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
71000 Posted April 5, 2018 Author Share Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) STOKE Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 6, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 6, 2018 (edited) I urge you to have a look at TEMPLOT and it’s extensive associated resources on building track and it’s description of BRITISH track Hi Dave, I suggest that you don't try to introduce prototypical track or Templot into a topic such as this. It leads only to arguments. I learned long ago that there are two separate model railway hobbies in the UK. One where track is regarded as an extension to the baseboard, simply a means to run model trains, and ideally built and laid as quickly as possible. And another hobby where the track is regarded as a model of a prototype in the same way as the trains. This topic falls within the first hobby. To see the origins of the first hobby, you have only to look at a typical RTR catalogue such as Hornby. All the locomotives and rolling stock are described in terms of their prototype -- a GWR Castle Class locomotive, A BR MK1 coach, a BR 16-ton mineral wagon. The track products are never referred to in terms of any prototype. They are not even described in the correct technical terms. Turnouts are described as "points" and referenced by radius rather than angle. This mind-set is introduced early to modellers and for some it lasts a lifetime. It is common to find modellers in later life discussing say the correct shape of the cab handrails on a particular locomotive, while at the same time still referring to "4ft points". Each of the two hobbies are equally valid, for modellers to choose between. There are plenty of topics on RMweb and elsewhere about building models of prototype track for those who want that. I suspect that it is not wanted here, or in similar topics such as http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/132306-simple-home-made-pointwork-for-micro-and-small-layouts/ Live and let live. But for any reading this who would like to learn more about the second hobby, this thick A4 book by Geoff Jones is full of track building info: It's from the 2mm Association but includes a lot of information and ideas applicable to all scales. See: http://www.2mm.org.u...book/index.html cheers, Martin. Edited April 6, 2018 by martin_wynne 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Simon Posted April 6, 2018 Share Posted April 6, 2018 (My Red Numbers): “Track Circuit Block” Hook stn.jpg Above: Hook station again, and taken from virtually the same spot as the previous picture but looking the other way. Now we have Track Circuit Block 3 aspect signalling on gantries as seen. Instigation and general description of signal types. Now a step change had to occur in the methods of signalling used, as many lines began to get busier in the 1920’s. The demand for a new system was based around the fundamental limiting factor of “Absolute Block”. Which restricted the number of paths per hour. Due to the restriction that mechanical boxes could only have one train per running line in the whole area each box covered. Obviously if trains could follow each other from signal to signal, and signals were placed at roughly equal distances along a line. More trains per hour could be past. This desire however revealed that the semaphore signal itself was incapable of giving a train driver the necessary information about the line ahead. So a new signal type would be needed. The next issue was how safety would be managed. This problem was solved by adapting a simple system that had begun to be used in mechanical areas, commonly known as the “Track Circuit”. However the “track circuit” as used in mechanical areas was only used as a train detection device, to show the location of trains at problem positions such as a loco standing on a pair of points. So was limited in its use and potential. It had been preceded by the mechanical track mounted “Treadle”. For the new system the “Track Circuit” had to have 100% availability. So a reliable and continuous electrical supply, not batteries. In addition continuous track circuits without gaps, would be needed along ALL Running lines. And the Track Circuits would have to interact with the new signalling types. In virtually all cases they would have to reset each signal passed to danger, as a fundamental MINIMUM to help ensure safety. The parameters for a totally new system were put to the Institute of Signal Engineers around 1925. In 1928 the first trial of the new system was implemented in the area between Elephant and Castle and Holborn Viaduct, on I think only two of the four tracks. (1) Its success led the Southern Railway to adopt the new system for much of its proposed electrification of the Brighton line in 1933. Which was Britain’s first mainline electrification. 02 Track circuit block diagram.jpg Above: The basic layout of a two track line using "Track Circuit Block". The position of the signalbox controlling such a line is now less relevant, so none is shown. The plan idicates that you simply add more signals alkong the line "ad infinitum". The system remains the same for plain line. Each signal automatcially returns to red, and assuming another train does not come, the signals will change to yellow and then green, as the train passes each subsequent signal. All controlled by the "Continuos track circuts" The system utilised Multi-aspect colour light signals of 2, 3 and 4 actual lenses. The system initially followed the semaphore system of having a separate signal for each route at junctions. This was altered within a few years to have fingers of smaller white lights (initially with 3 lights each) on top of relevant junction signals. A maximum of 6 fingers was possible (3 each side of the actual signal top). These were referred too as “Lunar lights” until the change to five whites per finger, since when they have generally been referred too as “feathers”. This gave a maximum of seven possible routes. The “Theatre box” was soon added to the collection of options. So that at really complex junctions such as entering London Waterloo Station, which had around 22 possibilities. The approach signal would have “theatre boxes” instead of “fingers” to display letters or numbers relating to each possible route, in addition to the main signal aspect. A colour light miniature type shunting signal was also implemented with certain early schemes. But the cheaper option of using an electrically controlled classic shunting disc, was used in many subsequent cases. BR introduced the triangular shaped “shunting” (3 lights), “Calling on” (2 lights), “Limit of shunt signal” (2 red lights) around 1965. (2) As the system basically functions electrically, it was quickly realised the number of signalboxes could be greatly reduced. This soon introduced the SR classic “art Nouveau” style of signalboxes. The Southern was however mindful of its shareholders, so in some cases mechanical boxes were converted to the new system to cover the same area. Or possibly expanded slightly to reduce two mechanical boxes to one at a particular station. The signals in common use must have three or four aspects. (Two aspect types can only be used in certain limited circumstances) (3). The principle is that a green aspect tells a driver he has a “Clear line”, and may proceed at line speed, or as fast as his train permits. Two Yellows is a “preliminary warning” normally only displayed on the four aspect type, but there is an import exception to this explained below. Drivers are expected to shut off power passing such an indication. Four aspect types are normally only used in the busiest locations. A single yellow means “Caution next signal is red”. This normally requires braking to commence on passing the signal. Red is obviously danger, stop. A Drivers Route knowledge becomes critically important in “Track Circuit Block” areas, as he has to remember the exact position of each and every signal and his braking points. If he is going to utilise this system to the full. The positioning of signals is done in accordance with the braking abilities of a worst case scenario. So in steam days unfiitted freight trains had to be considered. In more modern times it has been possible to close up the distance between certain signals. And even implement special situations such as London Bridge to Charing X, where signals can be less that a train length apart. Something that would have been impossible in steam days. The principles. The passage of a train along a Track Circuit Block line, means the train and its position is constantly shown on the control panel of the signalbox controlling the area. Thanks to the continuous track circuits. As the train passes a signal the signal will change to red, as the first wheels hit the “next track circuit” so ensuring safety. The signals themselves are also displayed on the signalbox control panel. Signals can be of three control types. “Controlled”, Semi-automatic” and “Automatic”. All signals approaching junctions, tunnels, and one or two other circumstances are “Controlled”. Signals protecting rarely used crossovers or yards are usually “semi-automatic”. Most plain line signals are therefore “Automatic”. However the signalman can restore certain signals to red even “Automatic” ones under certain conditions. And some junction signals that are labelled “Controlled” can at night for example be set to “Automatic”. (4) Double yellow three aspect type. The odd three aspect type signal displaying a double yellow (mentioned above), was a special circumstance on the Up and Down Fast lines between Surbiton and Basingstoke, implemented with the 1966 resignalling of the route. It was desired to have the signals on this four track route for both Up or both Down lines on the same gantry. This would however have restricted the maximum speed in certain places to 75mph on the Fast lines. So at places where consecutive signal gantries were insufficiently far apart, the Fast line signal was not provided with a RED aspect, leaving only three aspects. So effectively a type of “Distant” signal, but actually labelled as a “repeater”. (5) Two aspect signals on “Track Circuit Block” lines, certainly seem to cause confusion for many modellers. Firstly such signals can only be used on lightly used routes (3). The problem is that a two aspect Red/green signal does NOT provide the minimum amount of information necessary for a Train Driver. It therefore has to be preceded at the distance required by the permitted line speed, to allow for braking (a mile or more usually). By a Green/yellow 2 aspect signal “Distant”. In other words two signals are necessary to do the job of one 3 aspect signal. So lots of space is required, and you can still only run a few trains per hour…… “Permissive working within station limits” Other colour light signalled areas, include the problems of larger stations where the rule only allowing one train between two main aspect signals has to be modified. This requires areas of “Track Circuit Block “ lines to be modified to the “Permissive working within station limits” rules. The most common necessity being to join or divide trains in a station platform. It works like this: The first train arrives as per normal signal indications and stops in the platform. Once the train has stopped. It is possible for the signalman to signal a second train to enter this platform. He is however supposed to ensure that the second train, is brought to a stand, at the signal protecting entrance to the station. Because the main signal is simply locked at red, and will not change. A subsidiary signal known as a “Calling on signal” can be pulled off to illuminate two white lights at 45 degrees (it has no red). This instructs the driver, that under “Permissive working”. He is now allowed to pass the main aspect at red, and proceed at caution and be prepared to stop short of any obstruction, including the train already in the platform. A “shunter” or Person in charge of the platform will give him handsignals to move forward and buffer for coupling. There are other “Block” systems in use relating to colour light signals including RETB (Radio Electric Token Block) (6) for single line routes, so outside the scope of this article, as are “C2” lines. Flashing yellows. In recent years alterations to the basic 4 aspect signalling has introduced the use of “flashing” single and even Double yellow aspects. These relate to junctions ahead. If the line speed for the turnout route is restricted below that of the main line, the signal prior to the junction signal (not the junction signal itself) will show a “flashing single yellow” indicating the route is set (but NOT the signal) for the turnout (7). In some cases the reduction in speed for the turnout route is so great, it was deemed necessary to have the signal before the flashing single yellow also flash a double yellow aspect (8) SPAD indicators are a modern post BR idea, so I am not going to mention them. The ”Track Circuit Block” system is therefore a lot simpler in many ways to the complexities of the mechanically based “Absolute Block” system. There are rules however. One such allows a train driver to pass an “Automatic” signal at danger, if no communication can be made with the signalman. After waiting the allotted time relevant to that signal. He must however proceed no faster than he can see the line ahead, to ensure sufficient braking distance for his train if he spots an obstruction (9). He must NOT pass through any tunnel without permission. 71000 Hi. This is a very good attempt at explaining track circuit block, but there are a number of misconceptions in there: TCB was actually discussed at the IRSE in 1923 and the first installed in 1926, or at least that's what the research for my new book shows It was the LMS that first introduced the 3 lamp position light at Crewe in 1940, whilst the twin red limit of shunt wasn't introduced until 1985. There is nothing wrong with putting '2 aspect' signalling one a 125mph main line, the limiting factor is the economics of it, because if when calculating the required distance between the first signals distant and the next stop signal it comes out at less than 3 times the required braking distance, then it is more economical to provide 3 aspect signalling. The Semi-Automatic Signal used to be used, but is now obsolete and not installed. Instead we now use a controlled signal with an Automatic Working Facility. Although the terms 'controlled' and 'automatic' have now been switched to 'route-setting' and 'non-route setting' instead. A 'Double yellow three aspect type' is commonly know as either an outer distant or a 'Wiltshire distant' and was suffixed with 'RR' RETB does not use colour light signals, it uses an in-cab electronic token combined with verbal movement authority from a signaller. Under Flashing Yellows, the junction protecting signal is held at single yellow (with junction indicator), so is set at a 'proceed' aspect and may step up to double yellow or green (depending on the state of the signals ahead) when the train occupies the berth track circuit. If the route had been set, but the aspect not stepped up to single yellow (as in your example), there wouldn't be an flashing aspects, simply an ordinary cautionary sequence.. Equally, if the train is within the sighting point of the flashing single yellow when the flashing sequence commences, the flashing sequence is cancelled and reverts to MAR. The provision of a double flashing yellow has nothing to do with the speed of the divergence, it is provided if a 4 aspect signalling is provided, simple as that. Again, the rule about passing an Automatic at Red after a set time period is now obsolete, a driver now cannot pass a red signal regardless of waiting period without the verbal authorisation of the signaller. Simon 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
71000 Posted April 6, 2018 Author Share Posted April 6, 2018 (edited) This i Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
71000 Posted April 6, 2018 Author Share Posted April 6, 2018 (edited) cheers, Martin. As Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 6, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 6, 2018 This is not relevant to my page Basingstoke 1958-67. If you want to discuss what you consider to be the methods of signalling please do it in the relevant RMweb section but not on my page You do not own this page and you do not moderate it. This is a topic in the Forum section in RMweb. You can start a topic, but that is all you can do. After that its course is determined by the contributors, and anyone may contribute to it. If you want to steer it in a particular direction you will need to keep making relevant posts. If you want to post material on RMweb which you do have control over, and can moderate posted comments, you should do it in the personal Blogs section. That is what it is there for -- otherwise there would be no reason to have two separate sections. regards, Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 6, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 6, 2018 As I am building a layout based on Basingstoke 1958-67. I am using the original track plan. So TEMPLOT is totally irrelevant on my page. See my previous post. You do not own this page. Contributors are free to mention Templot here if they so choose. I would add that Templot can display historic maps as a background guide to prototypical track planning, so would be entirely appropriate to use for a model of Basingstoke in 1958-1967. regards, Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now