imt

IIf it is of any use 6 May 68 WTT shows 1A67 Dundee - Caledonian Road Car sleeper as a "spade" with "4 wheeled vehicles of less than 15' may not be conveyed". To my recollection our family car was carried to Inverness/Perth similarly on CCTs into the seventies.

Thank you so much for all of that. As you say I expect others will argue with it, but it does help the ignorant like me understand better!

"I don't think you need a trap from the platform onto the main line near d or at the end of the platform. Platform end maybe not, as (g) should be trapped, but close to (d) for me yes, to protect the through goods route?" I think this is where I should bow out - I am not an expert in these matters, just someone who has read the experts on here. HOWEVER in my (non-expert) opinion, IF the line is mineral only except for passenger trains to platform 3, then the ONLY traps you need are to protect the passenger line and those would be on d-f just before the point to platform 3 and on g near the crossover/slip or whatever on f. The rest would be under the control of shunters or maybe even private.

I not sure whether this is the right thread for this - maybe http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/35-permanent-way-signalling-infrastructure/ would be better as I am not sure how many of the engineers watch this one. Here's a quick starter for 10. Firstly they ain't catch points - I think you mean traps. Catches catch run away stock at the bottom of slopes. Secondly the purpose of a trap is to protect passenger movements from run away goods stock - forgot to put the brakes on? - or movements which might clash with passenger traffic. So many of your suggestions might be less than necessary. Proper answers from the experts might require some explanation of HOW this layout is intended to operate. Is platform 3 a dead end. Why do you need a l/h point off the passenger line d-h to g? The line from g (which crosses the main line) would need to have a trap to protect the main line. I don't think you need a trap from the platform onto the main line near d or at the end of the platform. Since the line c-e goes nowhere near the main/passenger line then no trap is needed. IF d-f is a main (passenger) line then the traps a-f and b-f are needed. Possibly not if this is a goods only line? So the experts out there will help - but give a bit more detail to help them first.

Never mind - I thought about it and then I enjoyed reading it with reference to http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/120680-regional-terminus/

Try this thread: www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/123756-baseboard-joints-copper-clad-sleepers/

Is this in the right thread?

Try Google or just go here http://www.brian-lambert.co.uk/Electrical.html

It won't go round 1st radius and might go round 2nd (it should tell you on the box). It'll probably look silly on any radius short of 3ft (which you would have to use flexi-track for). If you have them enjoy them, just use the largest radius you can. If you haven't bought one yet, think hard as to whether you want one in a limited space limited curve layout.

Thank you, I'll take a closer look at that line because there seems to be quite a bit of material - presumably because its new. You have hit the nail on the head with single lines - any "significant" delay (and it begins to look like that delay time will vary from line to line, section to section) will (gradually?) create chaos. The Swiss, who seem to have a lot of single line sections, seem to manage OK (frequent visitor) but there are times when you wait for passing trains. They also don't aim for 100mph trains, just a timetable that works and interlinks with all other forms of transport.

Thanks for your response - I end up having to edit things too so I wouldn't worry. Your comments are in italics below: Back in the 60s/70s the rail imperative was generally based on retrenchment / singling / closure rather than expansion or service enhancement, so the situation wouldn't have arisen. However, so long as the installation had power points and colour light signalling, there is no reason why a dynamic loop could not be operated from a single box. In my earlier thread I explained about my hypothetical railway branch - so I was really thinking about the late 60s/70s and the consequences of increased rathere than collapsing traffic (my own quiet never-never land!). Useful to see that remote control of points etc would have been OK. The Stationmaster had already reminded me that higher speed junction points would also help by reducing the need to slow trains approaching them. The number and spacing of signals has to exceed the maximum expected demand for pathways or timetabling becomes hedged about with conditions and any gain quickly disappears. The one with which I am familiar, at Axminster, can theoretically hold three trains in each side but any need/ability to feed that many into and out of it via single line approaches seems extremely unlikely unless the adjacent conventional loops at Chard Jn. and Honiton were both out of action This is how long is a piece of string of course, but I was looking to get some idea of how long such a "dynamic loop" would need to be to hold say 2 trains and keep them moving - 3 miles? In practice, two in one direction and one in the other is the usual maximum, though two each way may have occurred once or twice. Both roads are signalled bi-directionally, too, but beyond one terminating train a day from Exeter, it doesn't do much other than saving passengers boarding early morning up trains having to use the footbridge when there are no down trains about. I had thought about bi-directional working, but thought that such signalling would be a very expensive luxury.

Thanks for that insight. As far as I can see much of this is about sensible timetabling as opposed to just some double track. Getting the paths right and their crossings scheduled intelligently is important. One of the problems on the Perth-Inverness is extended waiting in stations for passing trains - what you are suggesting above would have quite an impact since there is extended passing time available, so if one is late/early it can to some extent be absorbed by the stretch of double line.

Thanks for that, its interesting to see that they are (still?) being implemented and the effect on traffic that they have. The original line from Inverness to Dingwall was double, then singled, then doubled again (repeat as nauseam) between Clachnaharry and Clunes which included the now closed Lentran station. Its currently single and a horrible bottleneck especially with the revival of rail in this part of Scotland: to be another of those much discussed "dynamic loops" now. The line between Blair and Dalwhinnie stations (something like 25 miles) is dual whilst much around it is single. I note many of those pressing for improvements ask for doubling of lines and where that is not possible "dynamic loops" - so I am still a little confused as to which is what and why.

So in fact a Dynamic Loop would be as well NOT to have a station in it since that could (potentially) foul up the timings. Obviously this is down to good timetable planning, but avoidance would be better?

I am trying to understand the process of increasing the frequency of trains on a single bi-directional line and hoping some of the experts would have the time to help me. Such a line would be controlled by various means - Track Circuit Block, Token Block, Tokenless Block, Radio Token Block (and I am sure the experts could name more). The objective being that once a train had entered the single line another could not enter from the other end until the first had (completely) passed it by. One way of providing increased frequency is to put in a passing loop - which may or may not be at a station: effectively splitting one single line section into two, presumably at the cost of another signal box and signaller. I suppose (unless it was a station that HAD to be sited where it was) the loop would be put as near half-way as possible and then (discounting delays for stopping before proceeding into the loop etc. "BR Regs. for Train Signalling on Single Lines" BR29960/15) you can have double the service. Some of you kindly enlightened me on many aspects of Tokenless Block in this thread http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/113085-information-please-on-scottish-tokenless-block-working/ So I am moving on from there. I keep seeing in these pages and elsewhere (e.g. plans for the Inverness - Aberdeen line, but there are others) the words "Dynamic Loop" being used. This doesn't seem very descriptive - unless they get up and move? (Sorry for the silly joke!). As I understand it, a "dynamic loop" is simply a length of double track (as long as you can make it weighed on cost benefit I expect). I presume (depending on length) that maybe two or more trains could be moving in each direction, and possibly the key aspect is that there is no delay for a train approaching the loop in entering the loop - since the approaching train could be several miles away rather than impatiently waiting at the loop exit signal. However the additional cost seems to be that there must now be 2 signal boxes and signallers, one at each end of the dynamic loop. Now I am sure modern electronic system would dispense with signal boxes and have a signal control centre, but how would the late 60s/70s have dealt with the problem? I presume MAS would be involved here to allow for the extra density of traffic?

This will sound rude I know, but are you SURE they are both SL-E91s. The performance you describe for the old point sound more like Insulfrog to me: SL-91. UNLESS you have frog power switching on the frog of an Electrofog point OR there are insulating rail joiners beyong each fog rail, then you will get shorts/unpredictable performance when the points change. An electrofog frog will have the same line potential as the stock rail which the switchblade is resting on. Look at the upper diagram in post #13 above. Hence in your case if the point on the main is set to diverge (left) and the point into Bay1 is set normal (UP) both rails of Bay 1 up to the line breaks before the crossover will be at the same potential - I think any loco any loco on that track is unlikely to move though? This doesn't happen with Insulfrog since they power only beyond the frog in the direction the point is set, hence both rails in Bay 1 will be live appropriately when the point is set in that direction. To evaluate this, insert an isolating rail joiner beyond the frog of the new point and connect it up, or just leave that rail joiner out if you don't have a plastic one handy, for a test.

Please, I don't want to divert this into a technical discussion on OCR. Can I just say that if going that way you need a good quality printer/scanner with a sheet feeder and some idea of what kind of output would be best for your editing needs. Doing this yourself by hand one sheet at a time will be time consuming and error prone. Best of all get a professional to do it for you - it'll take no time and be done properly. Like all things, why learn about a new technology which you have no further need for when pressed, get a specialist to do it.

This may not be the time or place BUT if that is the only problem then it is easily resolvable. 1) take several photocopies for security - please put one copy in a fire safe it is a MOST PRECIOUS object and I am not bullshitting or fawning. It is irreplaceable. 2) get the document scanned into text format - easily done by a good amateur or a professional service. It can be put into a format that you can easily work with very quickly. 3) tidy it up ONCE and then set about getting it published. Face the fact that it can/will never be finished. You will always find something, remember something else or learn about a new aspect. Get issue 1 out and then worry about errata, revisions, extensions, volume 2 etc etc. 4) You CAN self publish and put it on the Internet - others will be better able to advise on that. PLEASE, please don't leave it lying there. I had to drag my father-in-law's memoirs off him and do something similar, but it was sadly too late for revisions then.

Oh dear I must have appeared rude. I was really trying to be helpful ................ sorry!

Try posting it in the "Electrics (non-DCC)" forum?? Oh! I see you have!

Bob, I'm a bit slow - its called old age I think. I have of course now looked at your layout thread. You seem to be blessed (cursed?) with plenty of points and so on. I was quite alarmed when I first looked. I am pleased to hear that you are committing to certain configuration(s) and getting things working - I always find that important to keep enthusiasm up. You have a massive job on your hands. It must be nice to have that space, but I think it has caused you to try to fill it without enough understanding of the hows and whys of railways and railway modelling. I do wish you good fortune with it and will watch your progress.

Hello Bob, Only just seen this thread: because of the last posting it came up as unread for me. I DO HOPE that you have not wandered away disheartened, frustrated and confused. Sorry, but I don't know you so I cannot do anything but ask questions - they may help you think about where you are going. Is this your first layout? If it is please excuse me when I say it is awfully complicated for a first try. Why not do something simpler FIRST get the feel of things and then do this. I tried too complex, almost gave up, got reinspired, did something small and I'm now on to something bigger with a lot of experience and mistakes behind me. If its not your first layout, why are you sticking to DC? If you want something this complex it is screaming out for DCC. Maybe don't build this until you have DCCed your current layout and got some locos working on that first. THEN you will have made the mistakes and be ready for something else. DCCing things is NOT complex as a first go. You will have loads of people telling you that you need to wire points like this and you musn't do that etc. etc. First time round I didn't do anything special and I even had insulfrog points and it all worked after a fashion. I was able to improve that, but you don't NEED over complicated wiring of points or whatever. If this is to be an exhibition layout then you do, if it's for you then you don't - well at least in my experience you don't. I think your design is great, but it will be expensive to build and to provide adequate amounts of stock. Ther are things that could be improved in the design (like platform 5) but RULE 1 should apply - its your layout do it your way. If you want help thinking about less complex and DCC there are plenty of people on here to help. Just be aware that the perfectionists will have you cornering the copper market!

Hence the suggestion of a piece of string! It goes round corners and can be measured against rulers too!

Anything going to Inverness or beyond down the "Branch" - so trains from Edinburgh and Glasgow certainly, which in my time (early 60's) were standard size sort of trains. I didn't travel to Aberdeen that way so I don't know - but I thought most passenger work was via Perth and Dundee. I don't think many Inverness "expresses" (there's a joke) stopped at Stanley - but there were plenty of long trains - including at appropriate times sleepers and Motorail (which certainly didn't stop at Stanley). I have a passenger timetable for 1965/6 which does not have Stanley in as a station, but that might not mean much. My WTTs are after the closure date (1967??). Early 60's most Inverness local traffic was round by Nairn, Forres and Granton to Aviemore - again I didn't travel much beyond there, and my memory fails. Most fast trains left from Aberdeen and those travelling from Inverness were encouraged to a highland rail excursion - much to my father's annoyance. I am sure there are better informed pasengers/railwaymen around to help more.

Absolutely agree and it seems a bit pointless (oh dear) to repeat it all. On my small layout I CHOOSE to ignore all the advice and use Streamline 100 straight out of the box with no problems at all. This does not mean the advice is not good (its very good) but I decided against the complications. My layout is small, fixed, non-transportable and not exhibition quality - if you want the best possible basis for your electrics then read Brian's stuff - indeed it might be good to read it anyway, you never know YOU might decide you want to follow some of the advice (or even all of it if you want your layout to be moveable and/or to go to exhibitions).