Suzie

On 29/05/2023 at 12:53, The Stationmaster said:

The angle of the Junction Indicators ('feathers') is a geographical indication of the relative positions of the routes they read to - not an indication of variation, if any, on the turnout speed to those routes.

 

As a simple example there have been, and probably still are, signals with Position 1 (top left) and Position 4 (top right) JIs  with completely different (and on some cases widely different) speeds through the relevant diverging pointwork.

I don't think that you will find many junctions where a position 1 feather (one divergence) will indicate a route faster than no feather (no divergence), and similarly a position 2 feather (two divergences) will be unlikely to be for a route faster than a position 1 feather.

I am merely noting this for modelling purposes, not to tell a driver how to do his job!

I think that the simple differentiation is that in speed signalling the aspect tells you definitively what the maximum speed is after the signal, whereas in route signalling the aspect gives you a reference to your route knowledge/appendix to find out what speed you should be going.

A lot of subtle speed information can be gained from route signalling, as in the UK where the angle of the feathers tend to indicate slower routes the further the feather angle deviates from the upright, but you still need to know what the indication means - it is not an absolute speed indication - but does refer to some documentation which will tell you the speed for that particular location.

Some North American systems like Union Pacific where companies have been amalgamated have both route and speed aspects.

11 hours ago, SHMD said:

The shape of things to come...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60754357

 

 

Kev.

 

You can see them from the M5 now.

47406 shows how to do it in the most space saving way. You really will be best using Streamline or similar and put the crossover in the transition part of the curve where the very large radius will not cause a sudden change in radius.

Probably was not worth the effort. 

You could use a PL15, it will be a lot more reliable than two PL13s

There must be some pictures, because they were very noticeable. It seemed like they ran like this for years!

10 hours ago, mac1960 said:

...As for traffic flows I think rail freight in the UK, with the exception of certain block and liner trains is declining rapidly from an already low base, even if you include infrastructure movements, due the declining coal haul...

...as is there continuing use of rail freight, but this is partly decreed by Govt, as it is in Austria and Switzerland, and I have yet to sense  any political lobbying to put trucks on trains as there is in the aforementioned countries in the UK. The fact being that the UK is not that big a country, and the logistics just do not add up...

Trucks on trains does not make much sense over short distances, but shipping containers to inland ports does, and there must be lots of scope for moving containers across the Pennines both east from Liverpool and west from the Humber and Felixstowe. Lack of infrastructure is all that is stifling this, all the government needs to do is increase capacity and be believed when it makes a plan that it will actually be done. Shortage and cost of truck drivers is very motivational to freight operators - and that motivation is already there if an alternative can be made available.

Looks like someone did the sums and found that even with the eastern leg and the increased 33 minute Leeds Manchester time the fastest route south from Leeds to Birmingham was still via Manchester and the western leg, rather makes the full eastern leg seem a bit pointless.

All the proposed work would need to be done anyway at some point, so best to get it done first, and finish off the high speed Yorkshire section when the capacity improvement is required - when passenger numbers pick up sufficiently to fill 12-car EMUs.

What is currently upsetting passengers is overcrowding on very short 2-car and 4-car diesel trains, all a bit unnecessary when perfectly good EMUs are going for scrap because electrification has not been done.

It is Deja vu like the Blair years - lets cancel all infrastructure investment and waste more money in a big hole like the NHS etc.

Stupid thing is there has never been a cheaper time to borrow money, which makes the investment payback so much quicker.

I guess it would have helped if Covid had not destroyed ridership on the trains reducing the urgency of capacity improvements which is what they are really canning.

Winter tyres are optimised for temperatures way below what we experience in the southern UK. While they might start working well below 7C, good summer tyres will out perform them in the wet which is the prevailing winter situation.

Just use good summer tyres all year round, and stay at home when there is snow packed on to the road (about two days a year on average!) Look at the tests for Goodyear Eagle F1 summer tyres and you will see that they outperform most (if not all) winter tyres in typical southern UK winter conditions.

If you are really worried about driving in severe winter weather probably best to keep an old Landrover in the garage...

1 hour ago, Derekm said:

Hi I’m interested in using diodes for abc braking with Zimo decoders installed.

 

what diodes do I need and how do i connect them I assume I solder in a line ? And then connect to one rail with break ?

 

help would be appreciated.

Look at post 2 of this thread which has a link to some diagrams of how to make BM1 style braking modules on stripboard.

I would recommend that you use UF4001 diodes (suitable for trains drawing up to 2A) or UF5400 (bigger and suitable for up to 6A), but any fast diode will do. 1N4001 diodes are often mentioned but they are not really suitable because they are not fast enough and they mess up the DCC waveform possibly creating some poor response and reliability issues.

These BM1 modules just connect in line to the feed of an isolated section of track. Convention is to connect it in line with the left rail, but you can use the right rail just by connecting it the other way round.

Surely if both the Southport and Kirkby lines can justify being double track they must be able to justify electrification, it is not like they are small single track branch lines...

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

I could see battery units with in-platform charging provided at Southport being a solution to that kind of route. Comes with disadvantages if a train has to sit there for 20 minutes before it'll have enough charge to get back to the other end, but there are disadvantages to everything of one sort or another

Perhaps reinstate the 3rd rail to Moels Cop and charge up from DC on the way in and out...

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Thats a given!

 

I think some people are running away with themselves here - the twigs from Wigan to Southport and Kirkby pale into insignificance compared to the main trans-pennine routes or the MML in terms of passenger revenue / frequency.

 

Another consideration is that with Bolton and Wigan already having 25KV it is possible that there will be no need for any new national grid feeders (just a case of upgrading what already exists) and as such this particular 'infill' is relatively cheap to do.

 

As for the future of the Kirby and Southport lines, bi-mode traction is far more likely than electrification!

Could Merseyrail not be cajoled in to extending their 3rd rail to Upholland, then Wigan to Upholland would be an easy 25KV shoe-in with no need for a substation for such a short distance. Upholland could then become Skelmersdale Parkway! It would be a much better place to run the busses to rather than Wigan and Ormskirk.

It is not like Kirkby is a meaningful destination from either Manchester or Liverpool - it just happens to be at some municipal boundary I guess.

I would guess that Preston to Ormskirk would not need a substation either for 25KV.

At Wigan moving the Wallgate platforms to be adjacent to Northwestern would offer some scope for lowering the track under the bridge at the same time and make a much more sensible interchange station out of the sorry mess.

Making the Wallgate lines accessible by simple cross-platform interchange at Wigan, a bus connection to Skelmersdale from Upholland, and extending the Merseyrail to Upholland would significantly increase the ridership all round by providing facilities that are actually useable. Walking half way round Wigan, changing trains at Kirkby, and the mile or so walk from Upholland station to anywhere (including Upholland!) are all the sort of things that put people off.

I suspect that the Southport line will be able to justify electrification if destinations other than just Manchester Victoria can be found, and EMUs with smarter acceleration can reduce the journey time a bit on all-stopping services.

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

The Lenz system will also work with DC input, so you can used a decent DC power supply if you wish.

 

BTW Lenz is one of the systems that doesn't need a power supply upgrade as the software settable track voltage is stable with various input voltages (unlike the DR5000 that has no such feature)

 

Just Remember that you need to connect the negative to the 'T' terminal and the positive to both the 'U' and 'V' terminals otherwise you will overload the bridge rectifier.

Now, to try and add something. DCC concepts are trying to market their PSU offerings by casting doubt in people's minds that what they currently have is inadequate.

I think it is only Lenz that currently market a transformer with a DCC system, and therefore only Lenz that would benefit from a PSU upgrade (note special wiring of the PSU required with Lenz - don't just wire DC to the U and V terminals!). All the rest will come with a perfectly good regulated switchmode PSU, the only upgrade needed might be to get a bigger PSU to get full benefit from the capability of the built in booster.

I would never use a transformer nowadays for several reasons (weight, poor regulation, inefficiency and cost), but I would have no problem using the switchmode PSU supplied with most DCC systems.

15 hours ago, melvin said:

Surely all manufacturers of Digital Control would supply a transformer that is Smooth. ?

Transformers are transformers, they don't really come in smooth and not smooth varieties.

There is such a thing as an unsmoothed DC power supply, but you are unlikely to have seen one of these in the last twenty years! I don't think any have ever been supplied with DCC systems.

In reality there is very little to worry about.

15 hours ago, melvin said:

Have been reading the importance of Smooth Track Power. In particular the suggestions from DCC Concepts. Of which i understand. The question is. Surely all manufacturers of Digital Control would supply a transformer that is Smooth. ?  Look foward to comment. Merlin.

Melvin's question is all in bold, a little bit shouty to start with.

 

15 hours ago, melvin said:

Look foward to comment.

Melvin has asked for comment, and implies that he is welcoming comment, so there should be no surprise that people have commented. This is a very clear invitation.

Hi

The technique that I have used is to both bury the IRDOT LEDs deep, and position them apart at an angle so that they collect light reflected off the bottom of stock better.

As I see it there are two conflicting problems to deal with on the standard set up of the diodes together in a single hole:-

1. Trying to get light reflected at 90 degrees with the diodes parallel means that you don't get much reflected IR so you can't limit the sensitivity of the receiver with a long tube - you need all the reflected light you can get to make it work.
2. The receiver is pointing directly at interfering light sources on the ceiling etc.

Positioning the diodes in two angled holes means that you get a lot more reflected light, and you can therefore bury the receiver down a long tube to minimise the stray light pickup.

Last time I played with IRDOTs and had a problem it was with fluorescent tubes which have all sorts of flickering modes that can be too subtle to notice. Regardless of what Heathcote says pointing the receiver at a very bright light source will cause problems with false triggering. The IRDOT is able to filter out the steady light and responds well to very low levels of flickering at the right frequency!

14 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I can remember being on the footbridge at Reading station (pre rebuild) when A4 60009 came in on a railtour. I heard a passenger on the bridge say "Oh look, that train's on fire!"

This reminds me of a holiday in the west country when my aunty pointed out of the car window and exclaimed. "Oh look, a steamer!" We looked and saw a class 33 blowing out the most amazing clag with a rake of Mk2s behind.

I can only think that there is a problem with the left juicer connecting to the 'yellow' frog rail. As soon as the gap between the 'yellow' frog rail and what is to the left of it is bridged the juicer should provide the red power, the other rail being permanently connected to black.

7 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

Sorry but Taurus Excretum is the main byproduct!

Sounds like scope for a digester in the next compartment  to make a bit of methane, mix that with the hydrogen, and we are running on town gas...

7 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Has anyone considered hot air instead of steam? After all hot air engines have been around for years and work on similar principles to a steam engine. There will be no need to carry around water and the tender space could be used for batteries.

Here is a suggested source of hot air.

 

A special compartment in the front coach labelled "MPs only"

Since with hydrogen holding about 40KWh per kg it takes about 200Kg of hydrogen to produce the same energy as a tonne of coal it should not be too hard to power a steam locomotive with hydrogen even if the hydrogen tanks are a bit heavy and new emissions law requires you to carry around a tank of oxygen too.

Perhaps it will be the advent of the 'Techno-Tender' consisting of hydrogen tank, oxygen tank, condenser to make water from the exhaust steam, and perhaps a 25KV electrolysis plant to fill the tanks overnight by raising the pantograph discreetly in the shed...

Surely the answer to NOX combustion products when burning hydrogen is to burn it in a nitrogen free atmosphere. If you are making hydrogen from electricity then exactly the correct amount of oxygen is free as a by-product, just bottle it at the same time.

Now, how to store the gasses on a preserved steam train? How far would you get if you used a MkI GUV with 30t of oxygen and hydrogen tanks in it? Shouldn't look too out of place and a bit of through piping should not be too hard to avoid having to remarshal the GUV next to the loco, or perhaps just replace the GUV with a newly refilled one at each end of the line when running round if 15t of gas won't get you very far.