Regularity

Actually, it is incredibly difficult for the orchestra to perform. They have to be there and make no noise whatsoever for the full 273 seconds.

Thanks. Couldn’t find mention of that in the article: if I have missed it, someone feel free to point me in the right direction. I was slightly annoyed by the absence of a photo of the Perspex window on Abbey Street, as it was mentioned in the text. This happens not infrequently in magazines, including MRJ.

Touché, but I was still quoting a Cornishman.

Stops them running away, but you don’t get the push-back.

True, but where would be the innocent fun without a bit of it? Edit: And to prove the point, should we, or at least your local sheep, be concerned that you rated the post about cliff-edges as useful and informative?

A Cornishman gave me the following tip (I think he gave rather more to the ewe!) Always go to the edge of a cliff: creates push-back.

Always rather liked the little Black, Hawthorn: https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/LOCOMOTIVES-OF-SOUTHERN-RAILWAY-CONSTITUENT-COMPANIES/RYDE-NEWPORT-RAILWAY/i-24Pmzk9

Robin Barnes’ work:

So, finished by about 20:00 hours, then? Very nice, though.

Just so long as they aren’t frightened...http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/80426-cwm-bach-a-south-wales-branch-line/?p=3025455

I have experienced some phenomenal p1ss ups in Norfolk, so no.Sometimes it snows. The rest of the time, it’s just windy.

Unseen by whom? It’s been in more than one book.

Truly, you are a master of talking sh1te, Ivan. Hehe.

I bow to your much greater experience in these matters...

Put it in your signature.

Ah. I see. I hope.So anything like applying a partial brake would have to be done at the controller, not at the decoder, and to simply modify the speed signal sent over DCC? Yep. Big problem. This sort of thing was easily achievable with straight DC in the seventies, using a capacitor and a couple of variable resistances driving a pair of transistors (I know cos a friend and I built one to a circuit published in 1975!) so I sort of assumed this would have been built in to any “advanced” control system dating from 10+ years later. Maybe it was a “not invented here” mindset? How is that, for example, you can switch between two different CV sets on a Zimo decoder via a function key, or change the momentum settings with an NCE powercab/procab?Not being difficult, just wondering how they do it within the constraints of the current protocol? The only reason I have DCC is for the sound: otherwise I would go for remote/direct control. I am beginning to wonder if the DCC is worth it, at least how it currently stands. An on-board Arduino with DCC++ directly controlled might be a better solution: when the engine is at rest, I could use POM to re-configure some settings, and have the sound and drive separated at source. Seems like a bit of a faff, though!

Suggest that comments on errors over ProtoThrottle be posted on the MRH thread, where the development is actively discussed.

In the first plan, the double slip should be a single (slip retained on the lower road) and the single slip should be a double.

I agree that’s the issue, but it is still possible, with better programming of decoders and indeed by resetting CVs (as ProtoThrottle does) to use the standard DCC protocol to issue commands. The throttle settings need, on a diesel, to determine the prime mover sounds, whilst the momentum settings cause the engine and train to move according to the load - which includes, on a heavy train, the possibility of the engine not getting the train going at all. On a steam engine, the would be a slight difference as the chuffs need to be synchronised with the wheels, but the sounds could be varied to increase the “attack”, volume, etc, reflecting full gear, etc. Essentially the throttle setting is determining a target speed setting, and the momentum setting determines how long it will take to get there. By comparing the difference between the two, it is possible to vary the sound of the exhaust beats as the driver/engineer notches up the valuable gear to allow for expansive working. Better still, there would be two levers on the controller, one for throttle and one for regulator, as well as one for engine brake and one for train brake. The actual sounds should be driven by an intelligent program that does the hard work in getting that right, so that you then drive the engine according to the load. Drive hold/full throttle is, to my way of thinking, a dead end development as we should be looking more at how we can best simulate the driving experience, not becoming sound effect engineers. All of what I suggest is achievable using existing DCC prototcols. All of what I suggest would benefit from much better protocols, but it is not the input that matters here, but what happens between the input and the output. Sound is an output just as much as the current fed to the motor. The output from a decoder is up to the manufacturer, and not so dependent on the protocol, which should really be saying things like “set the momentum CVS to high values, to reflect a heavy load; now set the target speed to 56/128 steps, and accelerate to that based on the momentum settings last provided, and make sure that the main sound effects are delivered accordingly, based on the gap between whatever we are at and 56”. Extra sounds, horns, whistles, bells, whatever would remain independent and of course, there would be a coast/brake set of CV instructions and mappings, with some brake squeal blending in as the brakes get proportional tighter. Abandoning protocols and making them bigger and more complicated or just requiring more memory is what the computer industry typically does, rather than writing better operating systems and more efficient programs: I am not saying the the current DCC protocols aren’t old and wouldn’t benefit from some revision, but backwards compatibility needs to be maintained, and rather than putting more into the bandwidth, why aren’t we making much better use of the in-board microprocessor on the decoder?

Quite probably, but I think you didn’t put it very well, otherwise your second post wouldn’t have been so lengthy and full of additional information.

OK, but the number of planks may be a misnomer: they may have been smaller splanks, so no increase in capacity. GWR 3 plank wagons were the same depth as their preceding 2 plank wagons. Anyway, the general point was there was massive variety in the wagon fleet.

My point is that I think you are actually talking about the LCDR, and not the SER.

Can you check your sources? That looks more like a Chatham 2-4-0, and also the coaching stock suggests, for that era, a main line service. If you have Bradley’s RCTS books on the SER and LCDR, you will find details under each class of the services worked, sometimes down to exactly which service an engine or a class operated. From memory, the LCDR used the Scotchmen or Large Scotchmen 0-4-2WTs on the Greenwich Park services.