Dungrange

Well, I'm not up on the historic motorcycles that you indicate, but I would certainly buy a 'modern' (ie early 21st century) motorbike if Oxford were to produce one, though to be honest, I wouldn't care too much what type it actually was. I'm sure that there is demand for some of the motorbikes that you list from railway modellers, but Oxford's products are often allegedly driven by the 'collector' market. That is the reason why Oxford have a penchant for producing sports cars rather than the more mundane family saloons. Whilst many railway modellers would prefer the latter (to represent reality), the collector market seems to be more driven by aspirations. People collect sports cars, not because they own them, but because they are aspirational and more glamorous or desirable than the car that they actually own. In many ways, I'd consider motorbikes to fall into the same category as the family saloon: they might appeal to railway modellers, but less so to collectors. If you want to collect model trucks, but are short of space, collecting in 1:76 scale is an option because of their size. However, for the collector interested in bikes - why would they collect 1:76 scale models? Surely anyone interested in collecting motorcycles through the ages would do so in something more like 1:32 scale or larger, where the detail would be visible. That therefore means that I suspect the demand for motorcycles is possibly too low for there to be significant market for small scale models. Then there is the subject of cost. Producing a 1:76 scale motorbike would probably entail the same amount of research as a car. Production and assembly costs may also be similar, but are those who want motorcycles willing to pay £5 for them or would they expect the cost to be less because the model is smaller? The practical issues like how to stand a two wheel bike for display purposes may also enter the equation as to why they haven't been produced. I would hazard a guess that is why the only models Oxford have produced have a sidecar, but how many of them have they sold? If they sold well, then Oxford may interpret that as their being a market for motorbikes and therefore they may look at other prototypes. However, if the versions with sidecars have been slow sellers, then I can't seem them wanting to jump in and produce more motorbikes for what is probably a relatively small market. The return on investment is probably greater elsewhere. Whilst I'd happily buy a motorbike from the turn of the century, I'd much rather that Oxford increased their range of cars from the late 1990s through to the mid 2000s.

The scenario that you describe is broadly in line with my thinking. However, in 2007 (the period modelled) a contract has just been let to remodel the station. The crossover (still bullhead track) will be ripped up and moved further from the station, the old bay platform (platform 1) will be removed to permit platform 2 to be extended and a new platform is to be constructed between platform 3 and the former goods yard (in what is currently a car park). This will allow the station to accommodate six car sets - I'm assuming that this is to increase capacity that is required on services elsewhere. I'm not actually modelling this scenario, but it is the reason why there is going to be a large number of track workers on site, preparing for work to commence. I'm assuming that when the signalling was taken over by the 'Big City' Signalling Centre, that would be an opportunity to make some modifications to the signals. In particular, DG108 could be changed from a ground signal only to a Fixed Red with ground signal below. I've been advised that access to the loop would most likely be a shunt movement, if traffic on the branch was light (which it probably was in the 1970s / 80s under the scenario you've indicated) but given that the line is now reasonably busy (to the point where it may need to be re-doubled), access to the loop by a main route would be preferred. With regards track spacing, I'm assuming that all tracks in the fiddle yard (I'm hoping this will be a traverser) will be equally spaced at 51 mm track centres (the peco streamline dimension). However, through the crossover, the mainline and loop are 45 mm apart to represent the standard 6'. Therefore the distance between the mainline and the loop is increasing as the line passes under the bridge (no imagination) that will form the current scenic break. If I ever extend the layout, then I'll continue that increasing separation to accommodate signal DG104. The spacing between the engineering siding and loop is intended to convey that this is a 10' dimension, although it is slightly less and tapers down to 51 mm at the edge of the baseboard. Unfortunately, I don't think I can increase this much further. # However, returning to my original question, if DG108 is 6' in rear of the track circuit join GLA / PCD and this join is in turn 5' 5" in rear of the tips of the switchblades of the trap point, does this not mean that it track section GLA is occupied, no passenger movements would be permitted across track circuit PBE? That is, if GLA is occupied, it is not possible to prove that the locomotive held at DG108 is actually clear of the fouling point of the crossover because they are not 16' apart. My understanding would be that the track circuit join GLA/ PCD would have to be at least 16' (ie 4.88 m) to the left of the switchblades of the crossover to allow a route to be set through track circuit PBE whilst GLA is occupied.

As the secretary of my local model model railway club, we have members that fit into all of these categories. We don't have a permanent layout and all layouts are built in the club rooms with the intention of exhibiting them. However, we tend to have a layout erected in the club rooms most of the time either for testing or repairs prior to exhibiting or if there is no upcoming exhibition, purely for operating sessions. Some of the membership actively participate in construction, whilst others tend to focus on socialising. Some members tend to frequent the club rooms when a particular layout is erected and much less at other times. My primary reason for joining the club, albeit about 15 years ago now, was the opportunity to run trains on layout far bigger than I'll ever have at home. Yes, my stock is out of period, but that doesn't matter on a testing / operating sessions in the club rooms.

To answer each point in turn: Scottish Region circa 2007, but signalling should relate to Scottish Regional practise circa 1970s when the station was rationalised and re-signalled. The station was originally a through station when operated by the NBR / LNER / BR until the Beeching Era. The line to the southwest was then closed and Dungrange became a terminus. The goods yard closed around the same time. The track layout was then rationalised and re-signalled with colour light signals replacing the previous semaphore signals. The signal boxes would have been demolished and the points motorised. Yes, all movements will be at low speed. The turnout into Platform 1 is a B7 and the crossover is two B8s, so I suspect that I should have a 15 or maybe 20 mph speed limit at most. The line at the top is an Engineer's siding. This was once a goods arrival / departure loop that provided access to the goods yard, but the goods yard has largely become a car park, although Network Rail still have an access to the Engineer's siding. In model form, to the left of the image is the fiddle yard. In reality, it is a single track branch line with a goods loop that provides access to both the Engineer's siding and also a kick back to a private siding. As above, I'm assuming that this was once double track, until circa 1970 when the line was singled. What was previously the down mainline became the goods loop and what was previously the goods arrival / departure loop became an Engineer's siding. I'm hoping that the attached diagrammatic layout may assist. The broken black lines represent track that was lifted around 1970. Of the track that remained after that date, blue represents passenger lines, red represents freight only lines and green is track under private ownership. The track layout below the horizontal line is all that I am currently building and this horizontal line represents the left edge of the layout that I have drawn up in Templot. It's good to hear that an overlap isn't required with trapping protection and I can provide a full set of points if required. The trap point would in fact be the only new infrastructure in 1970 as the other point work would be unchanged from NBR / LNER days. I had therefore assumed that the minimum required would be added during rationalisation and that it was installed using components recovered from elsewhere. If DG107 and DG109 have to line up, then I'll move DG107 back. Unfortunately, I'd like either Platform 2 or Platform 3 to be able to accommodate a Class 221 (five car Voyager set). With DG109 as drawn, I don't think it will fit, which was the reason for moving DG107 forward - ie to accommodate a five cars set, I think I would need the leading axle to be around where I have marked the clearance point and therefore the signal would have to be placed accordingly (ie somewhere between the clearance point and the fouling point so that the driver could see it). I had assumed that the track circuit boundaries between PBC and PBD and between PCB and PCD would align, but now that you've pointed it out, I can see why they don't have to. This may therefore mean that DG109 can be mounted slightly further forward than DG107 and I could potentially make Platform 3 the only platform that can accommodate a five car unit. Signal DG104 can be 60' from the joint at the toe of the first facing points. In reality, this signal will actually lie in the fiddle yard, but I intend to make my own crude vastly over scale version just so that I know the correct road is set. If in the future I extend the layout, I can address sighting then (ie both distance back from the facing point and also whether a gantry mounting is required to obtain adequate clearance). I hadn't thought about having to align signals DG104 and DG108. I want to move DG108 as close to the trap points as possible because I'd like to be able to have the locomotive that I'm pretending has pulled the freight train into the loop to be visible (even if the actual freight wagons don't leave the fiddle yard). Therefore I was hoping to have DG104 'off stage' and DG108 'on stage' and clearly something like 120 feet apart. Could this be justified based on either the length of freight trains or them having more momentum and therefore requiring a longer stopping distance from the outer home signal? Dungrange_SteamEra.pdf

The attached plan shows the proposed track circuits and signals placed around this particular trap point. Dimensions are prototype dimensions. Bottom left is a bi-directional single line used by passenger services. Signal DG104 is the home signal (three aspect signal with theatre indicator and position light signal to control access to occupied platforms). Signal DG108 is a fixed red signal at the end of a goods arrival loop. The trap point therefore protects against an arriving freight train passing DG108 at red and colliding with a passenger movement either in or out of Platform 3 (top right). The connection between the goods loop and platform 3 is required to allow a freight locomotive to run round. Ideally, I want to move the fixed red signal DG108 as close to the toe of the trap point under discussion as possible. There is not enough space to fit a realistic overlap between DG108 and the crossover, which will therefore prohibit the simultaneous arrival of a freight train in the goods loop and a passenger movement in or out of Platform 3. However, as I would like to be able to accept a freight train into the loop whilst platform 3 is occupied (ie track circuit PCB is occupied), the distance between DG108 and DG109 (the starter signal at Platform 3) should be the minimum overlap distance, I think that this should be 200m (and I don't have the space), so will have to rely on selective compression. Therefore, with a bit more information, would you still suggest that I replace the trap point with a full turnout. If so, I think it will have to be a B6 since I already have a 1:6 pre-assembled V from C&L that I could add to the switch. The Chief Engineer has already decreed that the trap point currently shown in Platform 1 is to be removed, but I have yet to change the drawing in Templot. Dungrange_Signals&TC.pdf

The rodding at this location isn't a problem as the trap point would have been installed in a 1970s rationalisation using components from redundant bullhead turnouts in the goods yard and elsewhere. As such, it would always have been point motor operated, but I may still move it back slightly, even although I wanted it as close to the crossover as possible. The last part of your final sentence is the one that's generally confusing me. Other guidance seems to state that the track circuit clearance point would always be at least 4.88 m from the fouling point, which would seem to be the tips of the switch blades of the crossover. However, if the trap point has a standard lead (ie 5' 5") then I don't have the necessary 4.88 m between the track circuit boundary and the fouling point with the trap point in the position shown. Therefore I think that I either have to increase the lead length of the trap point (to achieve 4.88 m between the stock rail join and the toe of the switches) or alternatively move the trap point to the left, such that the joints at the end of the trap point are 4.88 m from the tips of the switchblades on the adjacent crossover. If that is the case, then I need to ensure that the two stretcher bars are offset by (4.88 m - 1.65 m = 3.23 m), which means moving the trap point by around 42 mm (in 4 mm scale). The latter would address Martin's concerns about whether a derailed vehicle would be clear of the crossover.

The image below indicates part of the proposed station throat for my layout drawn in Templot. When designing the layout, my assumption was that the tips of the switchblades on the trap point would be in line with (or fractionally in rear of) the tips of the switchblades on the adjacent crossover. However, now that I am looking to define fouling points and track circuit locations, I have come to the conclusion that the fouling point for the crossover is the tips of the switchblades, which would make the clearance point further to the left. My question is therefore, should the trap point start to derail a train when it reaches the clearance point or the fouling point? That is, is this trap point in the correct location, or do i need to move it to the left by around 5 metres?

Is that because they are plonk-ers :-)

Sad to hear of the death of Chester Bennington, the lead singer of Linkin Park, who apparently committed suicide earlier today. Linkin Park' s music may not be to everyone's taste and their style has changed over the years, but as one of my favourite bands, I'm sorry to hear of his passing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40676530

A modern terminus is most likely either a single platform or maybe two platforms at the end of a line with no other facilities. The replacement of locomotive hauled stock with multiple units, means that there is no longer a need for run round loops. There is no need for such stations to have a small good yard as there was in the BR steam era, as the wagon load traffic is no longer conveyed by rail (hence the typical conversion to a car park) and the centralised stabling and maintenance of fleets means that any locomotive servicing facilities that may have existed in the BR steam era are also not required. As such, what might have been considered as a 'classic' branch line terminus in the BR steam era, no longer exists in an equivalent modern form.

I think this is probably the best way to cover the topic. Each chapter can then be based on how a layout would be signaled in the Network Rail era (which is the period that you know most about), whilst acknowledging that there may be alternative arrangements that may have been used in the past (ie regional variations) to achieve the same outcome. I think that your introduction needs to cover some basic operating principles. Whilst some things may seem bleeding obvious to you (and possibly many that have contributed to this thread - particularly those who have worked on the railway), they clearly aren't obvious to all railway modellers, some of whom don't seem to understand what a signal is or what it is for (based on where I have seen some signals 'placed' on layouts). I think it is fair to assume that most of your readers will have driven a car, but probably few of them will have driven a train. However, I think it is important that the reader understands that there is one fundamental difference between driving a train and driving a car. The road network is largely uncontrolled, whereas the railway is a controlled network. A car driver can start their journey at a time of their choosing, follow the route of their choice and if necessary stop whenever they want. By comparison, a train driver makes none of these decisions, as these have been predetermined by the train planners and set out in the timetable. A car driver may give way when entering a roundabout or joining a main road and may have to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic to make a right turn, but again the car driver is free to decide which gaps he will accept. By comparison, a train driver makes none of these decisions, as these are made by the signalman, who controls the passage of trains through the network. Consequently, a signal is fundamentally a devise used by a signalman to give an instruction or provide information to a train driver. The way that I tend to think about signalling is that the location of signals are governed by the positions at which a train driver needs information. Once I've identified the location that the driver needs information (and therefore the preferred position of the signal), the next step is to think about what type of information is required and what speed the train is travelling at. Once I've ascertained that, it's possible to take an educated guess at the correct type of signal, whether that be a three aspect colour light signal or a Position Light Signal or something else. I think the key point is that you can't really signal a track plan without some understanding of the likely train movements and I think that is where some modellers go wrong. Of course I realise that it's not always possible to place signals at the locations that I have identified, because there are various clearance distances, overlaps, sighting considerations etc, that means a signal may be further from the junction than may initially be thought, but this is where the greatest differences will be between the prototype and a model, insofar as modellers tend to compress distances. As such, whilst a signal may be x metres in advance of a junction, in model form it may be visually acceptable to place that signal a scale y metres from the junction. As such, with regards overlaps etc, whilst you need to cover the actual distances, you probably also need to provide some guidance on what sort of distances may be visually acceptable in model form, albeit I realise that is a little subjective. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your progress.

I think they do to. It's just a pity that they don't have pictures on the website to confirm its the same thing. Coupling Mounting Blocks to suit Hornby Tension Lock Couplings (pair) Product Code: PA13 £0.20 They are listed under PARKSIDE DUNDAS (FITTINGS) ONLINE SHOP | 00 GAUGE 4MM SCALE | PARKSIDE DUNDAS PRODUCTS | PARKSIDE DUNDAS (FITTINGS)

Wasp stripes?

Instead of thinking about how long a dynamic loop might be in miles, think about how much resilience you want and how much you are willing to pay for that. Two trains should ideally be timetabled to enter the dynamic loop, one from each direction, at around the same time. If both are running according to the timetable then they will pass within the extents of the dynamic loop and continue on their journey without any delay. If the line speed is 60 mph, then a train travelling at the line speed will cover one mile in one minute. Therefore, if a dynamic loop is just over three miles long, then it will take a train three minutes to travel from the start of the loop to the end at 60 mph. What this means is that unless there is a scheduled station stop within the extents of the dynamic loop, a service will still be delayed if the train running in the opposite direction is running more than three minutes late. If you want more resilience, then you need to increase the length of the dynamic loops. If you want a higher line speed and the same level of resilience, then you need to increase the length of the dynamic loops. Increasing the length of the loops will increase the cost and the optimum length will be a balance between cost and resilience. I don't think that there is any specific threshold at which a dynamic loop becomes a short length of double track. Indeed, I'm sure that I've seen the section of double track between Dalwhinnie and Blair Atholl referred to as dynamic loops (which would clearly allow for maybe 20 minutes of delay before the train travelling in the opposite direction is affected.

Probably another year. If the tools are just being cut, then they've still to produce a first Engineering Prototype for review, make any amendments to the tooling to produce a second Engineering Prototype, produce a decorated sample and then authorise the production batch. We'll see them when they arrive.

Given that the scale minimum between track centres is 44.7 mm, I wouldn't go below that otherwise stock will be too close (ie a less than prototypical gap between two items of rolling stock).

Simon, As a potential reader from what I think is potentially your target audience, I’ll describe what I’d expect. I’ll describe myself as an ‘average’ modeller, which means that I want to do better than glue a few incorrect non-working plastic signals in the wrong place and pretend that it represents the real thing. However, I’m also not particularly interested in the history of signalling and all the details necessary to pass the IRSE exams. I wouldn’t spend £50 on a tome that covers everything that the RMWeb membership might want to know, but I’d be happy to spend say £17.99 or £19.99 on learning the basics. My signalling doesn’t have to actually be correct in every detail, but needs to be a working, plausible representation that appears to be operationally correct. My layout will represent a terminus in the post privatisation era (circa 2007), but the colour light signals would most likely have been installed in the 1970s to Scottish Regional practise when the line was truncated, the goods yard was closed and the station throat rationalised. As such, despite modelling the post privatisation era, a book that focuses entirely on the post 1990 / 1994 period is perhaps arguably of little interest to me. However, being an ‘average’ modeller, I will use whatever products are on the market and if that means using Eastern Regional signals from the 1980s, then so be it – I’m not going to scratch build a colour light signal to get the correct regional / period differences. I want to buy something ready-made, drill a hole in the baseboard, insert the signal, wire it up interlocked with the point-work and nothing more. What I’d like a book to cover is sufficient detail to allow me to select the correct type of signals from one of the suppliers of model railway signals and guide me with regards where to place them. Therefore, for example, I’d like to know the criteria used to decide whether I should use two, three or four aspect signals. I’d also like to know how far signals should be placed in rear of the junction that they control or protect and the circumstances under which this can be reduced (presumably this varies with line speed). In another thread you’ve confirmed that normal controlled signals would be reset when the departing train passes over the replacement gap, five metres in advance of the signal. That’s the sort of information that I’d find useful in a book. Although not on the visible part of my layout, I think I have ascertained that an approaching train destined for the goods / engineers loop would either have to stop on the mainline at what I think would be termed the Home Signal and then be signalled into the loop using a Position Light Signal or alternatively may be signalled into the loop using a main aspect on the Home Signal (amber + feather) provided there is a Fixed Red at the end of the loop, with a Position Light Signal below. Signalling to the loop using a Position Light Signal would restrict the capacity of the single track approach (because the train has to be brought to a stop), so I’m going to go with the latter assumption and install a Fixed Red at the end of the loop (which is in the visible part of the layout), although I’ve still to find a supplier for what I think is the ‘correct’ type of signal. Again, that’s just an example of the sort of scenario that I would like to be explained. I’m still trying to ascertain whether a run round move from one of my platforms would be controlled using a Position Light Signal below the Starter Signal at the end of the platform or whether I could give a full amber aspect on the Starter Signal to proceed to what I think would be termed an Advanced Starter (which would be at red) and then use Position Light Signals to complete the run round. Again, that’s just an example of the type of information that I’m looking for. I don’t know whether it’s within your intended scope, but some details on things like Facing Point Locks, Point Motors versus Rail Clamp Point Locks and other associated infrastructure may be useful along with details on representing cabling, trunking, signal cabinets and how various pieces of signalling and control infrastructure are connected and where they are positioned. TPWS and AWS ramps etc fall within this category. These are just a few of my thoughts – good luck with whatever you decide to write.

That's nearly 70% more expensive!! However, looking at these, the 45 or 50 mm is the outside dimension. The 45 mm channel has a 2.5 mm wall thickness, which means that the internal dimension is only 40 mm. The 50 mm channel has a 4 mm wall thickness, which means that the internal dimension is still only 42 mm. That's probably okay, but I wouldn't want to go less. The more expensive channel is therefore the one to go for. The minimum 11'2" track centre dimension (~45 mm) LNER4479 quoted in post #2 includes something like 18" (6 mm) clearance between vehicles travelling in opposite directions and I think that distance is measured between the kinematic envelopes. The stock itself will probably be around 37 mm wide as 28XX has stated in post #4. Scaling down the prototypes kinematic envelope will add around 1 mm either side of the stock when stationary, which increases the minimum width of your channel to 39 mm (ie the stock will effectively be around 2 mm wider when moving). There is then the need for a prototype clearance, which I think can be as little as a couple of inches, but that's still another 1 mm each side, which increases the minimum distance to between the walls of the channel to approximately 41 mm. However, I will echo mightbe's suggestion in post #10 to narrow the track gauge to 16.2 mm (ie 00-SF of 4-SF standard). The reason for this is that there is quite a lot of 'slop' with 16.5 mm track gauge and standard 14.5 mm back-to-back and this is the reason why some stock has a tendency to wobble. Narrowing the gauge by 0.3 mm (which you won't notice) helps to reduce the amount by which any rolling stock can move from side to side, thus helping to keep it within the scaled down kinetic envelope of the prototype. The important point is that you understand whether whatever supplier you are looking at is quoting internal of external dimensions.

Yes, I'm using the #14x series. but I can't remember which one. I think I decided that the long over-set coupling was best, which might actually be #149. Unfortunately, the hole in the chassis is above the dummy coupling on the class 158 rather than behind it. That is, it is plugged into the chassis from below, rather than having been pushed in as a NEM coupling is pushed into its socket.. If you take the body off, then to remove the dummy coupling you push down. I know some people like to use NEM versions for everything, but I prefer to use the NEM version only when a NEM pocket has been fitted. It would be possible to affix a NEM version with a screw, but of course that would severely restrict the amount by which the coupling can rotate.

It's relatively straightforward DIY. I'm not a particularly skilled modeller, but I'm willing to have a go. The worst you are likely to end up with is a unit with no coupling!! Taking the class 158 as an example, the chassis is effectively the same in each car, but the powered unit has a cast metal chassis, whereas the non powered unit has a plastic chassis and it should be easier to glue any modification to this. However, the plastic dummy couplings are the same on each unit and these are a press fit into a square hole in the chassis. It's probably best to take the body shell off to push these out from the inside. I broke one when removing it (although that's not really a concern as I'll probably be throwing it away), but Bachmann do not intend that you take them off - it hasn't been designed with a specific coupling modification in mind. However, once you have removed the dummy coupling, it is simply a case of fixing whatever coupling you want in the place where the dummy coupling was. I'm using Kadee couplings, but what I have found is that the point at which I'd like to screw the draft box of the Kadee coupling lines up with the hole where the dummy coupling was pushed in, hence the need to fill this first (although that may not be 100% necessary if you trust glue on its own to hold the new coupling in place). If I mount the draft box further forward, it is too visible and if I mount it further back, it would foul the bogie. However, these problems may not be apparent with another style of coupling. I guess the question is why do you want these units coupled together, are they to be permanently coupled or is coupling and uncoupling 'on stage' part of the reason for looking at modifying the couplings? In my case, it is very much the latter - I want a five car set (170 + 158) to terminate and a three car set (170) to depart leaving a 158 in the platform to form a different service. I'm hoping that Kadee gives me the operational reliability that I want for that.

As Tamperman has already indicated, they can't be simply coupled out of the box, but I am currently in the process of converting my fleet of Class 158 and 170 with Kadee couplings to allow these to be coupled as I want to create four and five car formations on my layout (I can't accommodate a six car set, but can probably run one on a club layout). This involves removing the dummy coupling which is simply pressed into a hole in the chassis block, filling that hole, constructing a pad with plasticard to get the mounting height correct and then gluing and screwing a Kadee coupling of your choice in place.

I'm hoping to do something like this as well, but unlike the original poster, don't currently use DCC (although I plan to). My intention is to arrange detection using current draw, which means ensuring that I use insulated fish plates when laying track to have functional track circuit blocks. My layout will be a terminal station, circa 2007, with mainly diesel multiple unit operation and only the platform starter (departure) signals will be on the visible part of the layout. My intention is that these can only be set to proceed if: The departure route is set (ie interlocked with the turnout motors); and The block(s) in advance (ie beyond the signal) is/are clear (no stock detected). There will be no signal box on the layout itself - I'm assuming that signals are controlled from a power box tens of mile away. I can't see a need for trains to straddle any signal, so I think I can rule out the need for delayed replacement. I assume when you refer to automatic signals, these are signals between blocks on plain track that are not interlocked with point and crossing work. That is, there will never be automatic signals within a terminal station, where the signal aspect has to be interlocked with the point and crossing work. I assume therefore that means I am either looking at my signals being 'normal controlled signals' or 'last wheel replacement signals'. I assume that for both of these scenarios, the relevant trigger is the 'replacement joint', five metres beyond the signal (which is what matters most to me at this stage). The principal difference being that for the 'normal controlled signal' the signal reset is triggered by detecting current draw in the block in advance (ie passed the signal) - ie when the first axle draws current, while with the 'last wheel replacement signal' the signal reset is triggered by the moment that the last axle draws current from my platform blocks. Is my understanding correct?

I bought that model when it was released, but I'm fairly sure that it didn't come with a limited edition certificate.

I assume that the refresh is the Realtrack website (http://realtrackmodels.co.uk/index.php?route=common/home) rather than the DC Kits website (http://www.dckits-devideos.co.uk/) which I don't think has changed recently.