Dapol working signals review

[steam in 50s]

Just thought I would try sending a picture.

[steam in 50s]

Try again.

[steam in 50s]

A green one.

[PaulYMRG]

Of all the forum topics I have read i just can't believe this one! It reminds me of the story of "The Kings new clothes"

 

We have Dapol defending the indefensible decision to provide the wrong circuit and others saying that it is perfectly ok to have a signal in an unknown position!

 

If you want your layout to look signaled then build a kit signal static and glue it in place.

 

Anyone who wants it to move will want it to move in a defined way.

 

I want them to interface with a DCC layout and want to instruct it set to danger or set to clear - I don't want to start a lottery (can you imagine this being allowed on a prototype?

 

Gordon's suggestion to have the same two wires set to danger on open circuit and clear on closed circuit seems to be the only logical way to have designed these signals would be acceptabel to all users and would mean non DCC users can stick with their switch.

 

I bought 4 of these before I knew how they worked - They are either waiting for a substitute MERG cirucit board or having the inner workings stripped out and just used with a solenoid. The latter being the prefered safe way to operate my layout which uses RR&Co.

 

The signals are a welcome move but their control needs a brave Dapol to stand up and say we got it wrong so the MK II will be welcomed by all.

 

By the way I come from a control & Instrumentation background so am not a novice here.

Edited July 17, 2012 by PaulYMRG

[Dagworth]

I bought 4 of these before I knew how they worked - They are either waiting for a substitute MERG cirucit board or having the inner workings stripped out and just used with a solenoid. The latter being the prefered safe way to operate my layout which uses RR&Co.

 

The signals are a welcome move but their control needs a brave Dapol to stand up and say we got it wrong so the MK II will be welcomed by all.

 

By the way I come from a control & Instrumentation background so am not a novice here.

 

See my comment no 338 here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/53096-Dapol-working-signals-review/page__st__325&do=findComment&comment=725126 where I've listed a very simple alteration that makes them perfectly usable.

 

Andi

[Stubby47]

Paul,

I think you're being a little harsh on Dapol.

To bring out a set of working signals, that anyone can plant on their layout and have working in a matter of minutes, must be a good thing.

There are lots of 'faults' compared to prototype signals, but there are always compromises between our models and the real thing.

You come from quite a technical background - maybe these signals aren't the right ones for you ? Would you run a Thomas the Tank loco on your layout ?

However, if you were a young lad with a trainset, these would be superb.

Just my opinion.

Stu ( who has two GWR Home signals, so far)

[beast66606]

We have Dapol defending the indefensible decision to provide the wrong circuit and others saying that it is perfectly ok to have a signal in an unknown position!

 

<snip>

 

can you imagine this being allowed on a prototype?

 

It IS allowed on the prototype and the solution is - the signalman OBSERVES the signal to check it's responded to the lever, we've done this to death.

 

Dapol are at liberty to provide WHATEVER circuit they chose, yes it makes senses for it to be different but "indefensible" ? - hardly.

[Gordon H]

To bring out a set of working signals, that anyone can plant on their layout and have working in a matter of minutes, must be a good thing.

 

No argument there.

 

There are lots of 'faults' compared to prototype signals, but there are always compromises between our models and the real thing.

 

But that is the point which most supporters of these are ignoring - this compromise need not have been made. The cost and complexity of the kludges and compromises so many users are now being forced to adopt to make these operate in a sensible manner far outweighs the few extra pence it might have cost to produce the signals that way in the first place - and everyone would be happy.

 

You come from quite a technical background - maybe these signals aren't the right ones for you ?

 

So do I, which is why this discussion went the way it did in the first place. Control systems are what I do for a living and as a hobby, though in totally different fields.

These could have been the right signals for almost everyone (operationally, if not in detail) if they had implemented the control in the way that has been suggested.

[Andy Y]

But that is the point which most supporters of these are ignoring

 

I wouldn't say ignoring it but an informed discussion allows people to make their own choices so please don't belittle those who choose to accept the product as it is. To keep telling people the same point over and over gets a little wearing.

[Oldddudders]

To keep telling people the same point over and over gets a little wearing.

I believe this is called "Duracell bunny" syndrome.

[Geoff Endacott]

Rather than read endless comments about the control method, I would be interested to hear how robust the signals are proving to be. The N gauge ones which we have fitted to Avonford look very nice, but also seem very delicate. Has anyone used the Dapol signals in anger during a weekend exhibition?

 

Geoff Endacott

[Stubby47]

The cost and complexity of the kludges and compromises so many users are now being forced to adopt to make these operate in a sensible manner far outweighs the few extra pence it might have cost to produce the signals that way in the first place - and everyone would be happy

Forced to adopt ?

Would you buy a Hornby Railroad 0-6-0 if you wanted a loco to P4 standards, and expect it to be exactly what you wanted without any changes ?

[The Stationmaster]

Forced to adopt ?

Would you buy a Hornby Railroad 0-6-0 if you wanted a loco to P4 standards, and expect it to be exactly what you wanted without any changes ?

 

Exactly so. This thread has already trodden the path about Dapol getting the control system 'wrong', it has already trodden the path about the need to observe signals to see if they have responded to the controls - and various answers have been suggested about the way in which the signals can be modified to make them work with such things as DCC or for folk who are only prepared to accept an on/off arrangement or a way of knowing by 'repeater' what position the arm is in.

 

If it doesn't work with DCC tough - I would be mighty upset if the things only worked with DCC! And to be pedantic if you want to work, say, the GW pattern signals with DCC are you going to apply GW locking rules & practice - which presumably DCC would allow you to do? I think I know the answer.

 

Let's take these signals for what they are - a simple, reasonably priced, way of introducing some fairly good looking semaphore signals to a whole lot more layouts. They are RTP, not finescale (although the dimensions aren't too bad) and just like some RTR locos and rolling stock they can stand a spot of altering and detailing to improve their appearance. But more than anything else they will bring signalling to a lot more layouts - and to me that is a big step forward for a large part of the hobby.

[cromptonnut]

Looking forward to the O gauge version announced today.

[PLD]

And above all, isn't it ironic that the most vocal complaints about the control method are from self proclamed 'Electronics Experts' or 'Control Systems Experts'; just the sort of people who (you would think) would be capable of adapting the signals to their own particular needs... Whereas several others more modest about their skills have actually got on and adapted the Dapol product to suit and shared their methods on here.

 

To the the first group - put-up or shut-up!

To the the second group - Thank you!

 

Paul

[steam in 50s]

not sure which group i am in Paul.

[Guest Moria]

Hoping I don't get lambasted for this but heregoes

 

 

 

If it doesn't work with DCC tough.

 

 

Just for absolute clarity, whilst I appreciate all peoples opinions in this thread, I would not like the above comment to be taken out of context especially coming from one of the most reasonable people on this forum.

 

They work fine under DCC on my layout using an accesory decoder, and in the setup I have for automation, they also work fine and my system also remembers in which direction they are set (clear or danger) when the layout is powered up and in use, and they are fully interlocked with the pointwork and section occupancy. I agree it is not a physical feedback but then neither are my points, I trust the system to remember and to be correct and as I get older, the system is starting to get embaressingly good at telling me I am wrong

 

I use a combination of RR&Co, Lenz and CTI with an Acela bridge.. RR&Co drives the trains and the CTI system does the signalling and interlocking for both semaphore and colour light. (Sorry Mike, but I don't even know what true GWR interlocking should be, but I do know that on the layout, a train cannot move till all points are set correctly and all signals are also correct)

 

Yes there may have been a simpler option at Dapol's end, but I am not the manufacturer so I have no insight into this, and I also don't know if future releases of the signals would be impacted by additional circuitry or other issues, I'm not an electronics person in any way, but for me, I am aware that to get these working with an indicator that knows what they are set to was a heck of a lot less work than hardwiring a decoder into an N gauge 14xx a couple of years ago

 

Regards to all

 

Graham

[The Stationmaster]

Hoping I don't get lambasted for this but heregoes

 

 

 

Just for absolute clarity, whilst I appreciate all peoples opinions in this thread, I would not like the above comment to be taken out of context especially coming from one of the most reasonable people on this forum.

 

They work fine under DCC on my layout using an accesory decoder, and in the setup I have for automation, they also work fine and my system also remembers in which direction they are set (clear or danger) when the layout is powered up and in use, and they are fully interlocked with the pointwork and section occupancy. I agree it is not a physical feedback but then neither are my points, I trust the system to remember and to be correct and as I get older, the system is starting to get embaressingly good at telling me I am wrong

 

I use a combination of RR&Co, Lenz and CTI with an Acela bridge.. RR&Co drives the trains and the CTI system does the signalling and interlocking for both semaphore and colour light. (Sorry Mike, but I don't even know what true GWR interlocking should be, but I do know that on the layout, a train cannot move till all points are set correctly and all signals are also correct)

 

Yes there may have been a simpler option at Dapol's end, but I am not the manufacturer so I have no insight into this, and I also don't know if future releases of the signals would be impacted by additional circuitry or other issues, I'm not an electronics person in any way, but for me, I am aware that to get these working with an indicator that knows what they are set to was a heck of a lot less work than hardwiring a decoder into an N gauge 14xx a couple of years ago

 

Regards to all

 

Graham

You're certainly not going to be lambasted by me Graham - if for no other reason that the fact that you have shown that it can be worked with DCC should someone want to do so. And from what you have said I'm pretty sure you recognised exactly the tenor in which my words were written

 

PS a 'masterclass' can be made available on GW locking principles should you wish - some were 'more so' than the standard principles while one was very much 'less so' than normal at some locations.

[signalmaintainer]

Unless I've overlooked it while reading through 15 pages of comments and insight this morning, no one has specifically mentioned the lack of counterweights for either the 2mm or 4mm models. To me, the signal masts look naked without them. Yes, static counterweights could be attached, but part of the attraction for me of having working semaphores is watching the entire mechanism move.

 

I intend this as an observation, not a knock on Dapol.

[cromptonnut]

And above all, isn't it ironic that the most vocal complaints about the control method are from self proclamed 'Electronics Experts' or 'Control Systems Experts'; just the sort of people who (you would think) would be capable of adapting the signals to their own particular needs...

 

I'll be using the mk 1 eyeball to feed back whether my Dapol signals (when I get them) are in the right position or not. Although I'll be operating the layout on DCC it may well be that my points (all 3 of them) are controlled by 'traditional; methods as although I have several accessory decoders I haven't yet managed to set them up properly, and given that it's a small and simple layout it's probably just less hassle than fully interlocking and working signals, particularly as at the moment only one point is actually on the main line to be signalled, the rest being in the sidings.

[Guest Moria]

 

 

PS a 'masterclass' can be made available on GW locking principles should you wish - some were 'more so' than the standard principles while one was very much 'less so' than normal at some locations.

 

I would be very interested in this

 

Regards

 

Graham

[coachmann]

Looking at these signals objectively, I could say they suit me fine and I would expect to be hung, drawn and quartered by the signalling specialists and signal men because I look for accuracy in coaches but willingly accept signals without balance weights etc. That hasn't happened and I'm still intact! . We are all obviously willing Dapol on to produce more signals because of the gap in the market for working signals, and as with Peco HO track, we are more than ready to overlook the shortfalls. At least the signals can be detailed whereas not a lot can be done with HO flat bottom track!

 

And talking about hanging, when can we expect bracket signals and will they be LH and RH...?

Edited July 18, 2012 by coachmann

[The Stationmaster]

Unless I've overlooked it while reading through 15 pages of comments and insight this morning, no one has specifically mentioned the lack of counterweights for either the 2mm or 4mm models. To me, the signal masts look naked without them. Yes, static counterweights could be attached, but part of the attraction for me of having working semaphores is watching the entire mechanism move.

 

I intend this as an observation, not a knock on Dapol.

 

When I get on with my 'detailing' package that is one area I'll be addressing - but in a purely cosmetic form - as well as, in the case of the GW signals, adding a dummy down rod in the correct place on the front of the post where it was a fairly noticeable feature (see earlier posts in this thread). Mind you even tho' it's in the wrong place (and not too noticeable to be honest) at least the Dapol 'down rod' works it the right direction and drives upwards to move the arm to the 'off' position.

[Bruciethefish]

Well, I've just spent a couple of hours reading through all 16 pages, having only just become aware of this thread...

While I can understand that certain folk are frustrated that these signals are not designed to meet some fairly stringent technical requirements, those same folk already seem to possess the skillsets needed to manufacture something more suitable for themselves, so why whinge?.

 

(Also, as an aside, what is the point of installing a signal on your layout in a position where you can't see it, & if this is the case, why would you care what aspect it was displaying?)

 

If & when I eventually get round to building a 'finescale' layout of a real location, I will be making models of specific signals, & will have to devise a satisfactory method of making them work. This might take weeks of painstaking work, resulting in signals which, if costed out in terms of my time, would be worth many hundreds of pounds each.

 

On the other hand, Dapol have provided us with a magnificent, good-looking & ready-to-use product, ripe for a little detailing or modification by those who care to do so, for a price that, by comparison, is absolute peanuts, & is coupled with a method of actuation that even a monkey could understand.

 

This really is a massive step forward for the majority of the hobby, bringing a whole new aspect to many potential users who would never have contemplated having operational signals prior to their introduction.- I for one will be looking forward to future SR style introductions, & if there's something suitable for my needs, you bet I'll be buying them!

 

Dapol Dave is to be congratulated for bringing to the market a truly innovative product, well thought out in it's simplicity of installation & operation, & at an unbelievably reasonable price. These will definitely be getting my 'product of the year' vote!

[coachmann]

Of course, what might happen is Bachmann or Hornby note the market for working signals that Dave has opened up and announce their own very much more detailed signals with all the perceived 'faults' ironed out of them. Folk with foresight are not always the ones that reap the benefits.