Realistic Speeds, starting and stopping etc.,

[250BOB]

My own view is that speeds tend to be dictated by the layout , and equally what's needed at exhibitions is very different to a layout operated privately. Many exhibitions are filled with the non enthusiast , and these viewers will not thank you for sparse trains and prototype running speeds. Hence many exhibition layouts have train movements of a frequency rarely seen in practice and hence are often run at higher speeds to ensure they clear the layout before the next one.

 

 

 

I'm just curious as to what you mean when you say "Many exbns are filled with non enthusiasts" ................. would you not say that perhaps all exhibitions are filled mostly with enthusiasts??

There are a few non enthusiasts maybe......the odd wife dragged along.......the odd disinterested youngster.......but most in my opinion are enthusiasts.

 

I agree that some layouts are run at higher speeds to disguise poor pick ups perhaps.......this would really show up if trying to do slow starts and stops.

[petertg]

I have read through this thread and would like to make a comment. I have no experience of visiting shows and, where I live, there is not even a modellers' club to see what's going on. I have an 8x4 roundy layout with a double loop (once under and then over a bridge) and the complete double loop measures about 12 m. I have first radius curves and have had the last wagon of a goods rake fly off the track at high speed. It is obvious that I need to limit the top speeds of the locomotives so, using the scale spped calculator available elsewhere on the Forum, I have tried to adjust the speeds to realistic levels using the CVs, although I still haven't quite managed to adjust acceleration/deceleration values to my entire satisfaction. I have adjusted the top speed of my DMU's to approximately the scale value of the real life top speed and that of other electric locomotives (old HO Lima`s) to reasonable top speeds compatible with the limits of the layout.

[The Black Hat]

I have found that when operating with DCC sound in all my locomotives at exhibitions, it has made the speed of the engines move much more realistically.

With DCC Sound, the engine note needs to take place to change first to allow the engine to move. Other sounds like brakes releasing etc, could be heard first but then with the engine underway it allows accurate driving. With points and interest on my layout causing the speed to vary, it means again the engine note changes. This gives an accurate view of the engine, as it has to wait for the corresponding sound to change before then trying to increase speed or slow down.

 

The difference here is when some chips have settings designed for layouts that run further and the engine takes longer to speed up or slow down. However, some chips are designed for shorter layouts where the difference is more noticeable, or at least it seems that way. It could just be that they are more responsive to the throttle and were designed to be such. No one wants a train to take a scale mile, if not more, to slow from 90 mph, besides most layouts are not that long. These chips that I have certainly work well and by default cause better accuracy in operation.

 

It will be interesting to see how things go from here, with the likes of drivelock to give more performance from the sound itself, but Im confident that it will rather than make driving harder and diminish performance.

[The Johnster]

I do this on my N gauge layout but, as I don't have any brakes on the stock, it isn't possible to couple up without the coaches moving. If the baseboard isn't perfectly level the coaches roll off on their own!

 

It'll look more realistic if you bring the loco to a stand for a little while before setting back.  The common model practice of just keeping going looks awful (well it does to me, your layout your rules) and is seriously unprototypical.  Bring your loco to rest, wait a while, propel back to the buffer stop and your coaches will be restrained by and you will couple up.  Please...

[The Johnster]

Oh , I could tear some of that to pieces - going in between to uncouple vac pipes on fitted wagons - why?  The reason they didn't have split pins was so that you didn't have to do that, just hook 'em off with the pole and shove.  In reality many freight trips were usually shunted by a  couple of men - the Guard and someone from the yard/station being shunted because it was the only way to get the work done in the time allowed and as for engines coming up against wagons on or in which men were working someone was definitely not doing the job properly if that happened.   And most folk would always try to shunt a yard as quickly as possible in order to get in the cabin for tea etc or down the road to the pub.

 

Don't forget that in steam days a brake continuity test was often observed in the breach on many branches with regular run rounds - if it worked last time and the vacuum was reading correctly in the van nobody was going to bother with testing something they'd already done earlier in the day.

 

Agreed that everybody wanted to finish and have a cup of tea, but I can promise you that when I was a guard at Canton, 1970-77, brake continuity tests on passenger trains were observed in the practice and not in the breach (not that a lot of running around was done in those days, but a brake test was done every time the continuity had been destroyed in shunting or a loco change), and that, if you paid any attention to the old timers, things were stricter in steam days, it was alleged.  The whole point was that, even if it worked last time it might not work this time, and nobody wanted to explain to the Board of Trade inquiry that they hadn't done a brake test for that reason.  And I was talking about coupling up brake pipes after the loco had finished running around and backed on to the train to recouple, not uncoupling which was a much quicker operation.  By the way, it was possible to hook out split pins with a shunting pole; I couldn't do it, but I've seen it done!

 

As for down the road to the pub, ah, happy memories...

[Reorte]

In this context , while the call for scale speeds is admirable , if often unrealistic for the circumstances. What's is in my view inappropriate for most layouts , is any attempt at scale deceleration and acceleration , most layouts are very significantly compressed and therefore realistically the goal should be have the train reach running speed appropriate for the section of the layout its on. Taking 50-60 feet to reach the operating speed is ridiculous , on most layouts the train has long since disappeared into the fiddle yard or the notion of it still accelerating on a roundy roundy , ie reappearing again still accelerating is ridiculous.

In those circumstances I think the best thing to do is have some non-stopping trains on the roundy-roundy. Non-stopping in the station, not the fiddle yard. Then you can have them flying through the station at a scale high speed, slamming the anchors on unrealistically once they're off the scenic section, and similarly for accelerating. A degree of unreaslistic acceleration to correspond to the layout compression is a good compromise but it needs care to avoid breaking willing suspension of disbelief, especially on a small layout.

[Vecchio]

I would say a programmed acceleration and brake curve is always better than manual - even if it is not totally realistic because you don't have the space to accelerate 2 minutes to reach top speed.What I noticed is that many (and this includes also the club I am a member of) are not programming their decoders other then setting an address and do not use the features of their expensive DCC systems. You see class 08 whizzing around with 100mph and braking like Hamilton in Silverstone. There are just a few basic things besides the address everybody should use: set proper top speed, set acceleration, set breaking, program a shunting function. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Indeed the ability to change CV's 3 and 4 on the fly so the the briskly accelerating light engine going to pick up a train, then pulls away very slowly with it's 1,000 ton train coupled on, is woefully underused. Part of the problem I believe is that operators want to drive. Far better to let the DCC system do the driving, it can far better imitate the effect of a large moving mass with its high inertia.

[Vecchio]

Just a comment from the grumpy old Austrian:

 

Slow speed: Zimo and LENZ can do it...

From the Zimo web page:

Extended ABC (until now only stop & Go): now also ABC speed limit (to be used with Lenz BM2 modules).

It is a new feature and on my small layout I will probably not use it.

Regards

Vecchio

[The Stationmaster]

Agreed that everybody wanted to finish and have a cup of tea, but I can promise you that when I was a guard at Canton, 1970-77, brake continuity tests on passenger trains were observed in the practice and not in the breach (not that a lot of running around was done in those days, but a brake test was done every time the continuity had been destroyed in shunting or a loco change), and that, if you paid any attention to the old timers, things were stricter in steam days, it was alleged.  The whole point was that, even if it worked last time it might not work this time, and nobody wanted to explain to the Board of Trade inquiry that they hadn't done a brake test for that reason.  And I was talking about coupling up brake pipes after the loco had finished running around and backed on to the train to recouple, not uncoupling which was a much quicker operation.  By the way, it was possible to hook out split pins with a shunting pole; I couldn't do it, but I've seen it done!

 

As for down the road to the pub, ah, happy memories..

 

Please read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.   Many men - and I was working in the Valleys in the early 1970s - much preferred loose coupled work but I don't think we ever had any problems of Continuity Test being ignored with those fitted trains we did run (I wouldn't necessarily say the same about certain train formed with MGR sets which did suffer some runaways) and it was common practice from what I saw in yards in the late '60s to simply let the pipes split when vac fitted wagons were uncoupled and shunted off because they didn't have pins in them.

 

But there were instances in everyday when Brake Continuity Tests were not carried out and I know that for a fact as did a Yard Supervisor (not in South Wales) who I sent home one evening under summary suspension for exactly that reason or a Guard I pulled on one occasion when I noticed from the office window that there was 'something that looked wrong' on a train he was working (about 80 yards from the window) and when he came in in response to my request for him to attend immediately admitted what had not taken place.

[tender]

Indeed the ability to change CV's 3 and 4 on the fly so the the briskly accelerating light engine going to pick up a train, then pulls away very slowly with it's 1,000 ton train coupled on, is woefully underused. Part of the problem I believe is that operators want to drive. Far better to let the DCC system do the driving, it can far better imitate the effect of a large moving mass with its high inertia.

We do this on our exhibition layout with all trains leaving the fiddle yard having their CV3/4 set for fast acceleration and slow deceleration into the terminus station. Then reversed for slow acceleration from the station and fast deceleration into the fiddle yard. For the runaround both CV3/4 are set fairly low for manual control. Sounds like a lot of work but it isn't, it's all controlled by single push button macros on our NCE Powercab/mini panel system which also drives the loco on and off scene including all the sound effects.

[Phil Bullock]

No need to tinker with CV3/4 on Abbotswood with ECoS and Loksound chips

 

Speed curve over-ride is a function on most of our chips ... the best operation comes from starting a train moving slowly, engaging sound (Avoids waiting for engine start sequence in fiddle yard) , over-ride speed curve, accelerate rapidly off scene to about 75% of top speed for train, re-engage speed curve as train enters viewing area and complete prototypical acceleration on view to give most effective sound sequence for punters

 

Reverse sequence as train enters fiddle yard at other end and leaves viewing area

 

Phil

[The Johnster]

Please read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.   Many men - and I was working in the Valleys in the early 1970s - much preferred loose coupled work but I don't think we ever had any problems of Continuity Test being ignored with those fitted trains we did run (I wouldn't necessarily say the same about certain train formed with MGR sets which did suffer some runaways) and it was common practice from what I saw in yards in the late '60s to simply let the pipes split when vac fitted wagons were uncoupled and shunted off because they didn't have pins in them.

 

But there were instances in everyday when Brake Continuity Tests were not carried out and I know that for a fact as did a Yard Supervisor (not in South Wales) who I sent home one evening under summary suspension for exactly that reason or a Guard I pulled on one occasion when I noticed from the office window that there was 'something that looked wrong' on a train he was working (about 80 yards from the window) and when he came in in response to my request for him to attend immediately admitted what had not taken place.

 

We're slightly at cross purposes here, Mike, and it's probably my fault, it usually is.  I always performed a brake continuity test on any train where the vacuum (or air) had been destroyed, every time it was destroyed.  It was the rules and basic self preservation in my view.  Working at Canton involved little loose coupled work in the class 9 way that it did at Radyr or Margam, but I preferred working class 7 & 8 trains with fitted heads and loose coupled wagons behind to fully fitted work, because it was much more interesting than riding around in a back cab with your feet up unable to see anything at night.  There was a feeling of it being 'proper' railway work.  

 

As an aside to MGRs, there was a period during which coal was being imported via Barry and Cardiff docks for Didcot power station, IIRC from Poland and East Germany, and poor stuff it was, very small and dusty but apparently Didcot could burn it and it was cheap, so...   Anyway, I went down to Barry one day with a 47 and crew to pick up a train of MGR full of this muck, and found that it had been shunted on to the big 180 curve at the end of the dock, so when I went back to put the lamp on and do the brake test, I was all on my own in the rain, out of sight of the loco, and well out in the boonies.  The driver had blown the brake off by the time I got there, and all I had to do was open the red cock on the last wagon and give the brakes a kick to see that they were tight on the wheels of the last 2.  Opened the cock, and nothing happened.  Bit puzzled, went and kicked some brakes; they were fully off and swinging freely in the breeze.  Closed cock and opened it again, and more nothing happened  Picked up end of brake hose and tapped it against the buffer beam; there was a kick and a noise like a gun going off and something black shot past my ear, kept going upwards, and was never seen again, leaving me fighting a snake until all the air vented.  I was a bit shaken by this; I'd never been shot at before, never mind at close range by a train, and took it a bit personally.  What had presumably happened was that the pipe, left dangling in the mucky coal on the dockside where it was being unloaded by cranes with grab buckets. with consequent spillage, had picked it up as wet slurry which had dried out in the pipe; what nearly decapitated me were four quadrant shaped blocks of this stuff.  I knew there were plenty of ways to get yourself killed on the railway but this was a new one!

 

Certainly we shunted fitted wagons and let the pipes split, especially on the Aberthaw Cement turn, but only after we'd isolated the brakes and the wagons were effectively loose coupled anyway.  And sometimes there'd be one with the split pin in and the hose would be pulled off the wagon.  Spares were on hand at Rhoose and Aberthaw and at Aberthaw there was a C & W man to put them on for you.  Brake test was done when the train was made up and ready to depart, and the Rhoose portion which was left behind in the platform road while we shunted out the Aberthaw works properly left with handbrakes on the leading wagons despite being held in theory by the destroyed vacuum.

 

You did right with the Yard Supervisor; he was in a position of authority and certainly should have known better!

[The Stationmaster]

Tapping air pipes against something solid was a practice which developed with the control air pipes on units.  As you know there is a small valve in the union which is opened by putting the unions together and they could and did get mucky - mind you I would fancy doing it with a train pipe at full pressure.

 

Incidentally the supervisor I suspended was reduced in grade to a clerk and I was lumbered with him in the depot time office - I caught him because of a conversation I overheard on the radio which suggested to me that something was not as it should have been.  Odd thing about brake tests - when I was shunting at Paddington during a dispute the number of Drivers  who didn't seem to think a Continuity Test was needed on a vacuum braked train when engines were attached at the opposite end was 'very interesting' to say the least.

[The Johnster]

Tapping air pipes against something solid was a practice which developed with the control air pipes on units.  As you know there is a small valve in the union which is opened by putting the unions together and they could and did get mucky - mind you I would fancy doing it with a train pipe at full pressure.

 

Incidentally the supervisor I suspended was reduced in grade to a clerk and I was lumbered with him in the depot time office - I caught him because of a conversation I overheard on the radio which suggested to me that something was not as it should have been.  Odd thing about brake tests - when I was shunting at Paddington during a dispute the number of Drivers  who didn't seem to think a Continuity Test was needed on a vacuum braked train when engines were attached at the opposite end was 'very interesting' to say the least.

 

I didn't fancy doing it either, as it turned out...

 

Never got caught by that one again.  If I tapped a pipe on anything it was facing well away from Mrs Richards' first boychild.

 

Yes, the little valve was sprung so that the pipe had to be pressed home against it's friend from the other wagon/loco, secured by a sort of lug and horn fitting, (I've probably described that really badly) and the end of the pipe had cross bracing, hence the 4 bullets that shot past me and are as far as I know still going...

 

Your comment about the drivers at Paddington is illuminating.  I would have thought that my principle of doing a test every time the vacuum/air is destroyed and you are about to take a train out of station limits would have been ingrained by years of experience and practice, never mind what is stated in the rule book, but what I would have thought don' count for a hill of beans in this rotten world.  Presumably they considered that the loco on the other end had done a test and was still coupled, but as the vacuum/air is re-destroyed to couple their own loco on... o well.