Ron Ron Ron

It's early days, so hopefully the user manual should appear online soon. A function such as route setting, if not included at the outset, is something that can be added to the app by future software updates. That's something that many older first generation systems won't be able to do. .

I agree Ian, it's not really very clear. On the issue of “Command bus protocol adapters”, this is what the product description says for the Lenz adapter says...... Although direct connection (NCE) or connection via protocol adapters (other DCC systems) should allow the Alpha and Alpha Central to work with most DCC systems, some people will be looking to provide their layout with its own dedicated accessory bus, operating as a separate Power District powered by its own Booster. This is where the Alpha Box comes in, rather than using a probably more expensive Booster from your DCC manufacturer's own range, which in most cases cannot support the Alpha or similar encoders. I suspect this is the angle on which the Alpha Box is being promoted. Using Lenz as an example. Their LW150 encoder that will allow mimic or switch panels to be connected to the DCC system, costs around £73 (compared to around £51 for the Cobalt Alpha). Then add to that the cost of a Lenz LV102 Booster (between £138 and £154). Dare I say that's a rather more expensive solution that opting for the DCC Concepts Cobalt alpha range of products? .

Thanks for posting that manual Ian. The details in there may or may not contradict other information on the DCC Concepts web site. The manual appears to be concentrating on promoting the Black Box (or Alpha Box as it's now being called) for it's various uses, such as.... powering an independent Accessory Bus, as a Booster (for almost any DCC system) to power additional Power Districts, to upgrade the Booster capability of low power output and starter DCC systems and as an alternative SmartBooster for the NCE PowerCab (instead of using NCE's own SB5 product). Unfortunately, the whole document appears to be a bit of a mess, containing some inconsistencies, typo's and errors. The most obvious ones are the transposing of the term Command or Cab bus, with Control bus. Even the annotations to the diagrams (for e.g. the labelling of sockets) are transposed or incorrectly written. However, there is a note to say that the photos are of prototype units, so the labelling may have been wrong on those and may be corrected on production examples???? Taken from another set of instructions for the Cobalt Alpha..... This suggests that by using an appropriate “Command bus protocol adapter”, the Alpha and Alpha Central can be directly connected to the Command bus of various other DCC systems, without having to use the Alpha Box as an interface. As it states, connection to the NCE Command Bus (Cab Bus) is already possible without using any such adapter. However this now appears to be contradicted by the manual posted by Ian. There appears to be no mention of the “Command bus protocol adapter” there and only connection via an Alpha Box is mentioned for non-NCE systems. I am quite baffled by this. .

No, they are Class 345. Class 342 was BR's proposed Networker based HS1 domestic train.

It seemed to me that it was posted in the wrong thread. The exact same post has gone into the "Class 442 Services" thread in the "Prototype Questions" section. Now we have a bunch of posts in this thread, that should be in another !!! .

As GC is also an Arriva company, that could mean all the 180's are being transferred from First to Arriva? .

Thanks Edwin. The comments at the bottom of the article include a discussion about the forces that will try to push the station box up and out of the ground. Also interesting is the reminder that the Crossrail station introduces a three way interface and demarkation lines between three separate rail infrastructure operators. Crossrail, NR and London Underground. Maybe this should be moved to the Crossrail Updates thread, as it's not strictly on topic? .

From last month, Paddington Crossrail Station.....

Another video, released last week, showing the track laying and cement train in action....... (again, available in HD)

There have been various threads covering Crossrail over the last few years, but I've failed to unearth an overall discussion or news topic. So I've started one. Crossrail have released dozens of videos showing progress on the project. Some are not much more than a couple of minutes of PR fluff, but most do contain some useful and informative insights into the work being carried out and some of the innovative solutions being employed to deal with the challenges faced. Almost all of them are available in 1080p and 720p HD, which is worth selecting if your PC/MAC/tablet etc, can display the HD formats. Here's a new one, released today......

This was posted in the Class 442 thread..... .

That's a good point. The Scotrail AT200 fleet is due to be delivered during 2017 and 2018 and completed by December 2018. The Pacers are supposed to be gone by the end of 2019, so there isn't much of a window there. Otherwise, the Hitachi plant will be busy building and delivering the large AT300 fleet for the IEP, until around 2020 As the follow on GWR order for AT300's is required from 2018, there is no capacity to build them at Newton Aycliffe, hence production in Japan. The Hull Trains AT300's are due to be delivered in 2020, presumably at the back end of the IEP order. With regard to the Northern & TPX fleets, has anyone considered the fate of the 9 First operated Class 180's (GWR x5, Hull x4), once these are replaced by AT300 SET's ? .

Update: According to NR, platform 14 will also be extended. CVx8TFAXAAA-vcP.jpg:large More here.... CVx8fsFXAAAcRL9.jpg:large .

They will start the removal of platform 13 next year, which will allow platform 12 to be extended. I'm reasonably sure I've read that it will be able to accommodate the 10 car Class 800's. Not 100% sure, but I think platform 11 also gets extended. Platform 14 will also be altered and resurfaced. Work starts this Christmas, according to NR. .

Mike, HS2 and the OOC station complex is already a "massive task". With sufficient room provided once the current depot(s) are removed, there may well be scope for suitable alignments and platform provision, including possibly a couple of loop platforms. There is even talk of diverting one or two of the other local lines in the area, to be better integrated and form part of the OOC complex (WLL, NLL, Tube????). I would have thought that dealing with any cuttings on the approaches will, relatively speaking, be child's play in comparison? I have wondered about that question too. However, what has to be borne in mind that the OOC concept, has been devised to alleviate pressure not only on Euston, but also on Paddington and the Underground system. The forecast large growth of the population of London and the expected requirement for increased public transport capacity, play a large part in this. Unless developments such as OOC are provided, the likes of Paddington are likely to become swamped beyond 2030. The OOC interchange could potentially provide.... Crossrail to HS2 Crossrail to GWML Crossrail to WLL/NLL and or Tube GWML to WLL/NLL and or Tube The alternative connection at OOC could provide rapid GWML to Crossrail transfers for onward travel to Kent and Essex, as well as the Central London stations. OOC escalators/stairs/lifts = 2 sets - Up then Down or v.v. (depends on bridge or underpass) Paddington escalators/stairs = 2 sets - Down to CR concourse then Down to platform level. .

Also remember that the central section of Crossrail is not part of the Network Rail national rail infrastructure, but is exclusively TfL territory. The service through the central section will be intensive and is expected to be heavily utilised within months after full operations get underway. I imagine there will be little scope for any external services, even if they were able to run on this "private' bit of line...which they can't. .

Did anyone get to hear the UK sound versions of the Econami sound decoders at Warley? Soundtraxx are running an online questionnaire to determine public response to those demo'ed at the show. http://www.soundtraxx.com .

Cobalt Alpha components are starting to find their way into the shops. The Alpha main unit and its remote "extension display" accessory, appears to be in stock, but the optional "Black Box" stand-alone accessory bus Booster is still listed as "order", or "coming soon". Likewise the "Cobalt Alpha Central Integrated Digital Switch", control panel, has a yet to appear. One interesting new item in the range is the "Cobalt Alpha Commander - Automated Sequence Controller". No details have been provide so far, as to what this unit does? .

With the various new and niche players now present in UK RTR market, both Hornby and Bachmann will have to be cautious of dragging their heels from now on.

Fixed.

Ah yes, but he only went for wider, not for taller. Hence all the GWML bridges that have and are being torn down and replaced, to allow the knitting to be installed. Height probably didn't matter too much to Brunel, as he was a bit of a midget err.... I mean, vertically challenged person. .

Mentioned already and some others not mentioned yet..... Rolling Rails Bachrus DCC Concepts Bachmann E-Z Riders Hornby (Burnley) Direct Train Spares Zeller (as sold by DCC Supplies) Metal Smith Ltd (large scales - 0 and above) I must have forgotten one or two others? . .

Thanks Edwin, I think that confirms what I was saying. So it seems I've remembered correctly. I'm sure the Hitachi AT400 will be in the race for the contract. . .

Earlier opening up to Crewe, without completion to Manchester, throws up a few issues for the rolling stock orders, particularly if the order is to be for two types, captive and classic compatible. Although nothing is set in stone, Manchester, like Birmingham, is expected to see operation of captive trains, but HS services between London and Manchester won't be able to utilise these until the full NW route is opened to the Piccadilly HS terminus. I've read suggestions elsewhere, on another forum, that classic compatibles would be used on these services initially, which would then be redeployed to the NE route to Leeds and beyond when that opens.. Floating an idea here.... It might make sense too, with respect to the production line and deliveries of the HS train fleet. Opening to Birmingham only, followed by a 4, 5 or 6 year gap before the next phase comes into use, would leave a significant gap between train deliveries and would possibly push costs up. By quickly following on with Crewe, halves the time gap until the next phase is opened, i.e. both Manchester and the full route to Leeds, reducing the gaps between train deliveries and allowing more continuous run of production. I'm making assumptions here, such as.... there being two train fleets (CC & captive), rather than one (CC only), if there are two types of train, that there's a single contract for both fleets and it's awarded to a single manufacturer. .