Ron Ron Ron

The game supposedly interesting Europol was Liverpool v someone obscure, think it's been widely reported on already.

There were two games mentioned. Liverpool is said to be one of them.

If anyone believes match fixing and corruption is a relatively rare occurrence, you only have to read about the subject to see it has been a major problem and continues to haunt European football.

Criminal prosecutions are ongoing in Italy and Turkey.

Europol report 380 matches in Europe out of 680 worldwide, in their report.

Was the match "fixed' ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/european/9846954/Match-fixing-investigation-finds-380-fixed-games-including-Champions-League-match-played-in-England.html

Far fetched?

The matches that Europol have evidence on, range from the less important European domestic games, right up to Champions league level.

Turkey is one country where corruption has been rife and match fixing has even involved match officials.

The ref in this match certainly went out of his way to ensure the result went the way it was intended.

.....I think DCC decoders are an excellent choice for a gateway system, where the RF module drives the DCC decoder. This limits the RF module software to sending and receiving RF info and translating to DCC commands, which must be easier than replicating all the existing, debugged, paid for DCC features.

David, sorry if you are already aware of the following, which follows exactly that logic.

Tam Valley DRS-1

They are demonstrating with an On30 loco with the battery in the loco tender...an issue where there is no other space available such as in a small tank engine.

The beauty of this solution is that there is fully compatibility with an existing command and control system and it leverages the existing standards and equipment already available.

More stuff, including that video.

A different video from someone working on implementation with both battery and track options.

.....t needs a collaboration between DT and a forward-thinking model manufacturer to put a starter set together, and who knows? 

(Sorry to say this), ........ not really, because it is crude, dated and frankly rubbish.

So my basic question remains, can I buy a 2.4Ghz transmitter that will control four separate receivers/speed controllers, (i.e., locos),  one at a time, without needing an on/off switch on each loco?

With modern wireless technology, you could run lots of locos all at the same time using one control device.

Not only that, but several operators could all join in using their own controllers to operate other locos.

There are no channels to select.

For example, the S-Cab system allows up to 8 controllers, each running up to 15 locos each.

The NCE GWire can have up to 4 locos in the recall stack, from up to 9999 loco addresses.

RailPro, which uses wireless for data transmission, but still takes power (full voltage) from the track, can accept more than 40 controllers, each running up to 12 locos at a time (out of 9999).

Of course it is easy to simply select or deselect other locos immediately (in most cases from a list of up to 9999 locos).

Actually sticking to BBC HD and BBC 1 HD there are still some decent ones

 Occasionally.

Not for much longer.

BBC HD goes off the air for good on March 26th (BBC2 takes over that HD channel on that date).

.

Giles, I'm not sure why you seem to be impressed with that sort of relatively primitive RC technology with, to be quite frank, a rubbish user interface?

Completely wireless operation is already commercially available in a more sophisticated form using modern wireless data technologies.

There are also examples using multi-way data transmission and user interfaces more suited to model railway use.

Stuart, we are in agreement then about the type of wireless technology that should be employed.

There are many who are thinking about older, much cruder forms of R/C.

As you probably are aware, such kit is already available, or shortly to be so, albeit predominately for the larger gauges.

What is missing though, is a bi-directional, or network data type system.

There are still costs to be incurred though and it won't be a cheap option, even if popularised by a well known DCC brand.

Electronics are as cheap as chips, the manufactures of dcc controls just put a high end price tag on them, same with sound chips etc, these things cost pennies to make, they're just profiteering, that's what businesses do.....

....In the video, the Transmitter, receiver and chip cost me less than £20, you can't tell me that a manufacture like Hornby or Bachman can't reduce this cost through bulk purchase.

The cost of components are a relatively small part of the cost of bringing a commercial product to market.

If you can assemble a device for £20, even with commercial purchasing or bulk buying, the manufacturing, distribution and retailing costs are going to result in a shop price of a £100 or more. There may only be a narrow profit in that price to boot.

.....look at what you're getting, a wire free locomotive that can run over trackwork as complicated as you like, because there IS NO WIRING involved, anywhere on the layout, ever!, plus no wheel clean, no wiper cleaning.

I'm sorry to get annoyed over this, but the technology is already available and is very affordable, the only two barriers to a battery powered remote controlled model railway layout are the manufactures and the naysayers of doom.

There are some very attractive advantages from going wireless, but it cannot be a realistic commercial proposition, nor be attractive to a wide audience if it involves going backwards to crude RC technology.

It needs something that at least retains the more advanced capabilities of DCC (including bi-directional comms), or preferably a more up-to-date 2-way data protocol (e.g. along the lines of something like RailPro).

Unfortunately, using crude RC equipment is just the electronic version of going back to clockwork.

Hi All

 

I've added three version of the Vossloh Eurolite to my Flickr site. This is the six-axle version with a different cab design to those ordered by DRS (I will do the four-axle version when I get a suitable high-resolution base image):

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/northernblue109/8317651939/in/photostream/ in silver and blue with DRS logo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/northernblue109/8318709564/in/photostream/ in silver and green with Vossloh lettering

http://www.flickr.com/photos/northernblue109/8317651543/in/photostream/ in red with DB-Schenker logos

 

GARRY

Nice work, but unfortunately not one of those photos is of the EuroLight.

Those are all of the larger Euro 4000, which is not just a 'different cab design", but a completely different and larger loco.

The Eurolight is based on a different chassis, is shorter, significantly lighter, has a different side profile, different cabs (as you mentioned), different powerplant and of course is a Bo-Bo.

The UKLight varies again from the Eurolight, with a lower profile body, shorter side panels and different cabs and ends.

Still, I liked the images. 

.

Say someone was starting from scratch, do we have an estimate of the comparative costs of RC and DCC?

RC will probably be DCC, otherwise dead in the water.

For an idea of cost, based on currently available systems, the NCE G-Wire Cab wireless DCC handheld throttle is listed on the well known Tony's Trains web site at $215.95

That's approx. £142.95

Add VAT = £171.55

However that's based on US prices, so for the UK with the usual additional import costs, expect it to be circa £200

The QSI Quantum G-Wire wireless receiver module is listed on the UK Digitrains web site at £99.75

Add to that the cost of a decoder of your choice.

Then add the cost of a battery (probably £20 to £25).

It all adds up.

At £150 to equip each loco/train (non-sound), it would soon get very expensive.

10 x locos = £1500 against...

10 x locos with just a £25 decoder = £250,

i.e. 6 x as much.

Compare that with adding a system like the Tam Valley Depots DRS1 to a regular DCC system set-up.

DRS1 receivers = $59-95 each (£39.68 before VAT & import costs)

DRS transmitter = $59-95

Now consider that this is being proposed for a market (the UK) where we hear howls of protest at the rising costs of the hobby and where there's a reluctance to even pay the going rate for decent quality 21st century RTR, let alone the additional cost to get RTR models made to the higher standard enjoyed by our European and N. American cousins.

I respectfully suggest everybody should "do the maths".

.

Unlike DC and DCC where the two dont mix well....battery powered and radio controlled locos could run on either system, alongside existing DCC or DC powered stock.  So the need to convert everything from day one is not required.

 

This has to be the future....does any manufacturer want to wake up to this.

It's already here and available and has been for a long time. Still, there's no rush to take it up either here in Europe, or in N. America where most of these systems are available and in use.

That may be one reason why it hasn't been taken out of its niche area and become more widespread or endorsed by the manufacturers?

Another couple of reasons may be that it either leads towards proprietary systems (commercial death), or to more open systems, where the user base can mix and match kit from other manufacturers, lessening the "tie-in" effect (bad for business).

For those who want it for H0/00 use, it's a pity that the Tam Valley Depot's DRS1 (mentioned earlier by David) isn't going to be put forward for EU approval.

This is the ideal conversion for any DCC system to become a completely (or part) wireless operation.

.

I've tried over the years to limit my purchases to models that would fit my chosen modelling era and theme, even turning my back on and resisting some of the superb D&E models that have appeared over the last two or three years.

I broke that rule with the Blue Pullman... resistance was futile.

Now it looks as if I'll give in again with this superb looking model.

I have an excuse lined up as I lived close to the London end of the GWML during the early and mid 1970's, when Westerns were a common sight. "For old times sake" will do nicely !

What a welcome antidote to the "design rubbish" idea that's coming from certain other quarters.

Keep 'em coming Dave.

.

Some of the Chinese fleet of HS trains are from Japan.

Some 200 train sets IIRC.

With Hitachi's Newton Aycliffe factory having completed the main SET train order for the IEP by the early '20's, will they be in a prime position (politically speaking) to win the contract for one of the two HS train fleets?

.

.....And planes still fall out of the sky today, killing far more than ever died in a Comet.

Except there are 50 x more of them flying than in the days of the early Comet and fewer accidents per number of flights or passengers carried.

This is the most likely scenario, especially if the conservatives are in charge when building finally gets underway. 

Don't forget, Labour were in charge when they handed over HS1 to the Canadian pension funds.

HS2 will be a much bigger 'liability" and any government, of whatever colour, will want to get as much of it off the books ASAP.

I remember them saying something similar about the Channel Tunnel. And the first passenger train to Frethun was? A Thameslink 319!

Hardly relevant and that wasn't on HS1 either, only the CT.

........With add-on electrification to Bristol, there could be a step change improvement to Cross Country and MML services even continuing to use existing rolling stock over the new route for the time being.

Existing rolling stock won't be using any part of HS2.

It's a completely separate railway system, where the connections to the "classic network" are only provided to allow the "classic compatible" trains to access the classic routes to destinations "beyond HS2".

The only non-HS2 stock will be for maintenance and infrastructure activities.

There has been some speculation that modified Pendolino's could temporarily use the route in the early days (phase 1), but this isn't covered in any documents I'm aware of.

In terms of being a separate network, HS2 may not even come under the auspices of Network Rail and may be put into the hands of a private operator, as is the case with HS1.

.

The "Ebbsfleet" of HS2. Males perfect sense to me.

What, another little used White Elephant ?

With Eurostars no longer required for tunnel services they could be replaced with higher capacity trains and moved to HS2 for the extension services. A ready made solution if they are not worn out by then.

They are looking pretty clapped-out now. Would help if they cleaned them a bit more often.

 

But otherwise, an idea that has legs.

Eurostars ?

That's a train operating company not a train.

Eurostar's Class 373's, which are now between 18 and 20 years old, are currently undergoing a mid-life overhaul, refurbishment and update (they were previously been refurbished in the last decade - 2004/2005 at around 10 years old).

The first set to be completed will be seen sporting the new Eurostar livery in the near future. The whole fleet is expected to be completed by the end of 2014.

This program should enable the Class 373 fleet to operate beyond 2020, before being retired just after mid-way through that decade.

That's around the time that phase 1 of HS2 (London - Birmingham) is expected to be opened (2026/27).

By then, Eurostar will have re-equipped with new generation trains, either more of their new Seimens Velaro's, or more likely a later design.

.

Not using double-deck trains would be a ridiculous waste of capacity (less 30% approx) and energy. Any traditional routes that may be used by trains from HS2 should be upgraded so that they can take double-deck (not that difficult if already cleared for W10 container traffic).

Given that capacity is a driver, I can see the captive fleet ones being double deck.

 

I'm not convinced it's so easy for the others. Contrary to popular belief W10 is not fundamentally any taller overall, so i'm unconvinced that double deck trains running off the core are so easy.

I agree that not using double deck trains in the captive fleet would be a missed opportunity and a complete waste of the larger gauge.

However Martyn is correct that the"classic lines" will not be able to take anything but a severely compromised double deck train.

It's not only height; there's also the platform height and clearance issues.

Captive HS2 stock (single of double deck) will not be able to clear "classic line" platforms.

The "Classic compatible" stock will be designed for HS2, but compromised to fit through "classic line" platforms, in the same way that the Eurostar Class 373 was built to run on BR tracks prior to HS1 being completed.

Such a compromise on the "classic compatible" would make double deck so restricted at platform height level, as well as in height, that it wouldn't be worth pursuing. You just couldn't get a realistic design to work as a passenger carrying train.

.

Ther has been talk on here of trains coming off HS2 and on to the old network. Does that mean that the new trains will be built to the "old"(I don't know the correct terminology) gauge?

 

My non-railway friend seemed to think that the new trains will be double deckers. Can double-deckers run through the Chunnel and up HS1?

 

Please excuse my ignorance

 

Ed

The plan is to build the new HS lines to the larger UIC GC gauge. The same as HS1 from St. Pancras International to the Channel Tunnel.

This wil allow double-deck trains to be used if so chosen, as well as (in theory) trains from the other side of the channel.

To answer your other question, yes double deckers could be run on HS1.

The CT has an even larger clearance than HS1, to allow for the large double deck Shuttle trains. Double deck passenger trains would have no problem in the tunnel.

As for HS2, the intention so far has been to introduce two types of train onto this new network.

A "captive" fleet, that will take full advantage of the wider and taller loading gauge, but will be restricted to the HS network;

plus a "Classic compatible" fleet, that will be able to operate on both HS2 and on suitable classic lines, off the HS network.

The "Classic compatible" fleet will allow trains to and from the north to make use of HS2 phase 1 (London - Birmingham) as soon as it is open; continuing the rest of their journey on the existing classic lines.

When phase 2 is open to Manchester and Leeds, with the accompanying links into the WCML and ECML; these trains will be able to use more of the HS network, before transferring onto the classic lines for the remainder of their journey.

The use of a dual fleet is yet to be confirmed and no decision has yet been made about the use of double deck trains in the "captive" fleet.

.

Oil will have run out in 50 years or so ......so a start on these high speed lines now is the right thing to do. 

You do realise that without oil, there'll be no food, no jobs and a collapse in the world economy as we know it. Trains will be the last thing we'll need then.

The long nature of the construction and short-term nature of politics almost guarantees that the folk responsible for signing off on this now won't be there to cut ribbons and bask in the publicity on the opening day...

Indeed Martyn.

The expected opening of this phase 2 is in 20 years time from now.

I wonder if I'll be lucky enough to see it?

.......A 3 way junction just west of Manchester Airport will take the line past the Airport and through some very dense urban (and expensive housing) areas more or less direct to Picadilly, a new station on the north side of the existing Picadilly so not Mayfield or Exchange.

The line is shown entering a twin bore tunnel immediately after the Airport Interchange Station.

It's in tunnel all the way to the approach to Picadilly. The tunnel portal is something like a mile or less from the terminus.

.