 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / May 2004Slip Switch Track
What is the difference between "Double Slip" and "Single Slip" tracks? How do they work? How are they used on real railroads and how do people use them on model railroads? Thank you for your help, laser633 Anna Maria Island, a quaint litle drinking village with a fishing problem. > What is the difference between "Double Slip" and "Single Slip" tracks? How do > they work? How are they used on real railroads and how do people use them on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > laser633 Imagine an X-shaped crossing. Label the four branches A to D, clockwise from NW to SW. Through routing is A-C and B-D. A single slip will also accommodate one additional movement, say A-D. A double slip will accommodate both A-D and B-C. So, a single slip is equivalent to a crossing and two turnouts; a double slip is equivalent to a crossing and four turnouts. This is kind of tough to do non-graphically, kind of like describing a spiral staircase without using your hands. :-) -- Bill McC. Slip switches are overlapping combinations of a crossing (a 'diamond') and a set of switches ('turnouts'). They are complicated and troublesome on both real railroads and models. They do save space, however, and are used in confined quarters where absolutely necessary. In prototype railroads, one common application is the lead-in trackage ('throats') to large passenger terminal yards. Being deeply imbeded in large cities almost by definition, space is at a premium in these yards. Vast arrays of slip (and other) switches are combined in VERY complex trackwork. A 'double' slip switch can be though of as a 'routing' crossing. Choose any ONE of the four tracks to enter the switch, and you can choose to leave by either of the two OPPOSITE tracks (straight through, or branching). This is true no matter which of the four possible entrance tracks you begin from. Such a switch is very similar to a double crossover in function, with one crossing and four switches, but takes up only about 20% as much space. A 'single' slip switch can be though of as a 'routing' crossing with fewer possibilities. On each side, ONLY one of possible 'entrance' tracks allow you to choose an alternate exit track (straight through, or branching). The remaining entrance track allows you only to pass straight through. It is equivalent to one crossing and two switches, but again takes up less space. A similar arrangement is the so called 'three way' switch. It's NOT really one switch that allows you to take any one of three diverging routes as it appears (only a 'stub' switch can do that). Such a switch is really TWO overlapping switches. Together they allow the choice of any one of three routes. "Slip' and 'Three way' switches are both examples of 'lap' switches. These are so arranged that the various components of one switch overlap those of adjoining switches saving space. Model railroaders like these switches because they LOOK 'neat', and because they save space. They do require an unusual amount of maintenance to keep working well, and may cause problems with some equipment. Prototype railroads avoid them like the plague, but still are forced to use them in confined areas. Dan Mitchell ========== > What is the difference between "Double Slip" and "Single Slip" tracks? How do > they work? How are they used on real railroads and how do people use them on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a quaint litle drinking village > with a fishing problem. > Slip switches are overlapping combinations of a crossing (a 'diamond') > and a set of switches ('turnouts'). They are complicated and troublesome [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > crossover in function, with one crossing and four switches, but takes up > only about 20% as much space. "http://www.ida.net/users/tetonsl/railroad/dblslip.htm" He also has some verbage on why most RTR double slips and double crossovers don't work very well. Paul > A 'single' slip switch can be though of as a 'routing' crossing with > fewer possibilities. On each side, ONLY one of possible 'entrance' [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> a quaint litle drinking village >> with a fishing problem.  SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX Thanks for your replies. They help me decide about using one on my layout. I had planned to throw one in at a junction on a portion of my layout that looks kind of like the top of the Atlas N-16, "Atlantic Longhaul Lines" trackplan. Thanks also for the link to the Teton Short Line site. It has been a while since I last visited Wayne's website. Ed Upshaw Anna Maria Island, a quaint drinking village with a fishing problem. >Anna Maria Island, >a quaint drinking village >with a fishing problem. I was never much of a fisherman, but I remember the Stumble Inn...vaguely... Jeff Sc. Native, Ga. Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. >A 'double' slip switch can be though of as a 'routing' crossing. Choose >any ONE of the four tracks to enter the switch, and you can choose to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >crossover in function, with one crossing and four switches, but takes up >only about 20% as much space. The above is, in my view, misleading. A double slip does not have the functionality of a double crossover at all. The essential feature of a double crossover is that it allows trains to cross from one main track to another, in either direction, and most importantly it allows for two simultaneous parallel moves on those two main tracks. A double slip allows for only one movement at a time and is functionally identical to two turnouts connected toe to toe. So identical that the wiring is the same. The lap analogy is correct just visualise those two turnouts pushed together so that they overlap, A double slip is not equivalent to 4 turnouts and a crossing, its just equivalent to 2 turnouts, and is wired and operated as such. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. > The above is, in my view, misleading. A double slip does not have the > functionality of a double crossover at all. <snip> > A double slip is not equivalent to 4 turnouts and a crossing, its just > equivalent to 2 turnouts, and is wired and operated as such. Before this erupts into a blaze, may I suggest that this sounds like a terminology problem, and that y'all may be talking about the same thing differently. For my part, I was taught that a double slip is *four* turnouts and a crossover, integrated, and topologically and functionally the same as what you call a double crossover. SignatureJohn Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm According to my best recollection, I don't remember. -Vincent "Jimmy Blue Eyes" Alo >> The above is, in my view, misleading. A double slip does not have the >> functionality of a double crossover at all. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >crossover, integrated, and topologically and functionally the same as what >you call a double crossover. Then you were taught wrong, terminology is not the problem, the functions and topology are very different in the two cases. Particularly that a double crossover allows for two through routes with simultaneous moves, a double slip does not. The double slip is two turnouts squashed together. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. > Then you were taught wrong, terminology is not the problem, the > functions and topology are very different in the two cases. > Particularly that a double crossover allows for two through routes > with simultaneous moves, a double slip does not. The double slip is > two turnouts squashed together. Yes, definite terminology brane faht on this end. The thing I was missing in trying to visualize your description of the double slip was "frog to frog." A picture really is worth a thousand words. In trying to find the simplest way to make the verbal distinction, how about, "the double slip necks down to a single track, while the double crossover has continuous parallel tracks." SignatureJohn Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm Murphy's Laws: (1) If anything can go wrong, it will. (2) Nothing is as easy as it looks. (3) Everything takes longer than you think it will. At NO location in a double slip switch does it neck down to a single track. It's more like a gantlet track, with overlapping but separate tracks. Dan Mitchell ========== > > Then you were taught wrong, terminology is not the problem, the > > functions and topology are very different in the two cases. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > (2) Nothing is as easy as it looks. > (3) Everything takes longer than you think it will. >At NO location in a double slip switch does it neck down to a single >track. It's more like a gantlet track, with overlapping but separate tracks. When you select the through route it is as single track with lapped turnouts. The diverging routes are like gantlet tracks. 'OK', I'll buy THAT description ... but it probably already has some confused. Dan Mitchell ========== Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >At NO location in a double slip switch does it neck down to a single > >track. It's more like a gantlet track, with overlapping but separate tracks. > > When you select the through route it is as single track with lapped turnouts. The > diverging routes are like gantlet tracks. >At NO location in a double slip switch does it neck down to a single >track. It's more like a gantlet track, with overlapping but separate tracks. True but a gantlet track is logically a single track, only one train at a time can use it. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. >>At NO location in a double slip switch does it neck down to a single >>track. It's more like a gantlet track, with overlapping but separate tracks. >> >True but a gantlet track is logically a single track, only one train >at a time can use it. Your message implies that a double slip switch is not restricted by the limitation that only one train at a time can use it as is a gantlet track. Is that what you mean to say? I should hope not. Never the less, the wording clearly implies that. A double slip turnout, when set to the diverging route is, in fact, very much the same as a gantlet tack. The difference being that the distance is much shorter and the points must be re-set to use the other diverging route. In a double slip turnout, one -and only one- route may be set at any instant in time. Perhaps this is what you meant? > > Then you were taught wrong, terminology is not the problem, the > > functions and topology are very different in the two cases. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > about, "the double slip necks down to a single track, while the double > crossover has continuous parallel tracks." No - the double slip necks down to two closely spaced parallel tracks plus a crossing - four tracks all impinging on a common loading gauge. The double slip can be sub-divided into two distinct families, those where the two curved tracks interlace, and those where the two curved tracks pass without touching. Regards, Greg.P. Keith, the double slip is indeed 4 turnouts and a crossing all wound up into a small piece of trackage. There are a set of points for each of the incoming tracks which indeed means 4 turnouts. Topologically, the double slip and the X crossing are the same basic thing but they are indeed doing somewhat different chores with the intent of the double slip to provide a crossing as the normal and the X crossing the not crossing as normal. -- Bob May Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. Works every time it is tried! >Keith, the double slip is indeed 4 turnouts and a crossing all wound up into >a small piece of trackage. There are a set of points for each of the >incoming tracks which indeed means 4 turnouts. Topologically, the double >slip and the X crossing are the same basic thing but they are indeed doing >somewhat different chores with the intent of the double slip to provide a >crossing as the normal and the X crossing the not crossing as normal. Bob, I thought I explained the difference fairly clearly, and tried to avoid causing confusion by using english English instead of american English. Topology is probably a bad word to use as maybe none of us looked it up in the dictionary and so maybe are using it differently! (We'd probably have to agree on which dictionary to use anyway). Function is better. The double slip functions as two turnouts toe to toe, (not frog to frog). A train coming from either of two tracks can leave on either of two tracks. It differs from two turnouts in that it uses less space and two achieve this with acceptable radii you have two add two obtuse crossings (elbows?) and an extra four switch blades. Note that there are still two sets of switch blades, just that each set consists of 4 blades working together not the usual two. The double crossover (Scissors crossover in England) has the same function as the double slip and also the fundamental and most important function of allowing two trains to pass simultaneously on the parallel tracks. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. I agree it FUNCTIONS as you state, but that's NOT how it's built! The two parallel 'through' routes use DIFFERENT sets of rails. Except when using it as a pure crossing (one route) the rails used are not the same. That's why it's topologically different. Now we're into topology. Whee! That's where a donut and a coffee cup have the SAME shape, but different functions. Dan Mitchell ========== > >Keith, the double slip is indeed 4 turnouts and a crossing all wound up into > >a small piece of trackage. There are a set of points for each of the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> > Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. > Now we're into topology. Whee! That's where a donut and a coffee cup > have the SAME shape, but different functions. "Pass me that bottle, Klein!" > > Now we're into topology. Whee! That's where a donut and a coffee cup > > have the SAME shape, but different functions. > >"Pass me that bottle, Klein!" Q: Why did the chicken cross the moebius strip? A: To get to the other.... er. Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within! Then there's the mobius strip. The funniest story I've heard about those has to do with the big old steam engines that used to power shops of all types, with long ceiling mounted lineshafts running all over the place. Usually the engine was in a separate room, or even a separate building, with a great long FLAT leather belt connecting the engine's flywheel to the main lineshaft. The belt might be from one to two FEET wide. Sometimes these shafts would be 50 feet or more apart, and you could NOT see both ends at once. Sometimes such belts were assembled with a half twist in one side to even out wear and reduce tracking problems. Thus they were effectively a mobius strip. Farm traction engines also often use this method when driving threshing machines and such. A favorite trick, as the story goes, was to assign some greenhorn employee the task of painting the OUTSIDE of the belt bright yellow to make it more visible for safety reasons. The worker was also instructed NOT to get any paint on the INSIDE of the belt, or the paint would make the belt slip on the pulleys. Then the joker's would go away and wait for the fun to begin. IF the story has any truth, I don't suppose management was real thrilled with the gunked-up belt! These could not have been cheap. A more plausible version would have the employee applying belt dressing to the inside of the belt, with instructions not to get it on the OUTSIDE. Either way, it's funny to think about the poor fellow's misfortune. Dan Mitchell ========== > > Now we're into topology. Whee! That's where a donut and a coffee cup > > have the SAME shape, but different functions. > > "Pass me that bottle, Klein!" >Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within! Clifford Stoll makes and sells Klein bottles on his web site: http://www.kleinbottle.com/ If you remember some time back, he was the Berkley astronomer who got transferred to the university's computer department and given a project to discover why two computer charging programs gave different results - and found hackers whose time was accounted for on one but not the other. And tracked them electronicly to Berlin where they were working for the Soviets, in one direction and to various military sites in the other via Berkley as a gateway. It was a brilliant piece of work from somebody who wasn't very computer literate at the time. The case was famous at the time. He wrote a very readable book about it - The Cuckoo's Egg. > A favorite trick, as the story goes, was to assign some greenhorn > employee the task of painting the OUTSIDE of the belt bright yellow to > make it more visible for safety reasons. The worker was also instructed > NOT to get any paint on the INSIDE of the belt, or the paint would make > the belt slip on the pulleys. Then the joker's would go away and wait > for the fun to begin. <snip> > Either way, it's funny to think about the poor fellow's misfortune. In the Navy, we used to use three-ply carbon sets which came on long rolls (paper, carbon paper, paper, carbon paper, paper). The "newbie" trick was to unwrap one turn of the top layer of paper, trim it off even with the others, then hand it to the new guy and say, "The factory must have messed up. Get these layers back in the right order." It was a rare rookie who didn't start by unrolling the entire thing down the passageway. SignatureJohn Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm Living in New York City gives people real incentives to want things that nobody else wants. -- Andy Warhol >> A favorite trick, as the story goes, was to assign some greenhorn >> employee the task of painting the OUTSIDE of the belt bright yellow to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >up. Get these layers back in the right order." It was a rare rookie who >didn't start by unrolling the entire thing down the passageway. Anybody who has seen 2-ply bog roll paper would know that one. >>> A favorite trick, as the story goes, was to assign some greenhorn >>> employee the task of painting the OUTSIDE of the belt bright yellow to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Anybody who has seen 2-ply bog roll paper would know that one. Nope. You'd be astonished and amazed at how well and how often it works. I would guess better than 90% effective. On 5/1/04 12:46 AM, in article 4093396f.61940094@news.west.earthlink.net, >>>> A favorite trick, as the story goes, was to assign some greenhorn >>>> employee the task of painting the OUTSIDE of the belt bright yellow to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > would > guess better than 90% effective. As a 1st LT in an infantry unit, we used to regularly run NUGs (New Useless Guys) around looking for: cans of squelch; left handed monkey wrenches; skyhooks (a classic); left hand vibration dampers (for M113 cupolas), and more. Had my driver going all day between me, the PSG, and the motor pool one day during an exercise in Florida. SignatureBrian Ehni > As a 1st LT in an infantry unit, we used to regularly run NUGs (New Useless > Guys) around looking for: cans of squelch; left handed monkey wrenches; > skyhooks (a classic); left hand vibration dampers (for M113 cupolas), and > more. You didn't have them get an aerosol can of slack? Paul On 5/1/04 8:56 AM, in article W%Nkc.7835$Ik.658346@attbi_s53, "Paul Newhouse" <rockhead.com@pimin.rockhead.com> wrote: >> As a 1st LT in an infantry unit, we used to regularly run NUGs (New Useless >> Guys) around looking for: cans of squelch; left handed monkey wrenches; [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Paul No, just prop wash. SignatureBrian Ehni You'd think so but most people have a real problem associating problems into the groups that they are. Most people automatically assume that the problem that they are faced with is an original problem and try to do a straightforward fix of the problem and that is where you get the rolling of the paper down the hallway instead of looking at the end and seeing that one form has the top part removed. -- Bob May Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. Works every time it is tried! > You'd think so but most people have a real problem associating problems into > the groups that they are. Most people automatically assume that the problem [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. > Works every time it is tried! It is only common sense. Which is extremely rare... Jim Stewart >You'd think so but most people have a real problem associating problems into >the groups that they are. Most people automatically assume that the problem >that they are faced with is an original problem and try to do a >straightforward fix of the problem and that is where you get the rolling of >the paper down the hallway instead of looking at the end and seeing that one >form has the top part removed. Right, same problem they have with seeing what a 'double slip' is the logical equivalent of. Hung up on a 'set of switches' having two blades so unable to see that a 'set of switches' can have 4 blades. <g> Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. > Then there's the mobius strip. > > Sometimes such belts were assembled with a half twist in one side to > even out wear and reduce tracking problems. Thus they were effectively a > mobius strip. Farm traction engines also often use this method when > driving threshing machines and such. Never saw a mobis strip type belt on a farm tractor. Most of the time they did put a twist in a standard belt. Howard (ex-farmer) Garner >I agree it FUNCTIONS as you state, but that's NOT how it's built! The >two parallel 'through' routes use DIFFERENT sets of rails. Except when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Now we're into topology. Whee! That's where a donut and a coffee cup >have the SAME shape, but different functions. Oh, I thought a donut was a torus while a coffee cup was a cylinder. Donuts fit inside coffee cups, right? But you aren't supposed to eat the cup. Cylinders don't have single HOLES through them. Coffee cups and donuts DO. Both are in the shape of a torus, but the coffee cup is greatly deformed. Dan Mitchell ========== Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >I agree it FUNCTIONS as you state, but that's NOT how it's built! The > >two parallel 'through' routes use DIFFERENT sets of rails. Except when [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Donuts fit inside coffee cups, right? > But you aren't supposed to eat the cup. >Cylinders don't have single HOLES through them. Coffee cups and donuts >DO. Both are in the shape of a torus, but the coffee cup is greatly deformed. > >Dan Mitchell >========== I'll have to think about that one. At first rush I want to disagree with you and say that a torus does not have a closed end, while a coffee cup most demonstrably does. However, I will look into it and reply definatively later. Just think of the possibilities. A donut that can serve as its own coffee cup. The potential for making a fortune boggles the mind. >>Cylinders don't have single HOLES through them. Coffee cups and donuts >>DO. Both are in the shape of a torus, but the coffee cup is greatly deformed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >that a torus does not have a closed end, while a coffee cup most demonstrably does. >However, I will look into it and reply definatively later. Nope, he's right. Actually, a cylinder is a torus is a donut. If you took an infinitely elastic donut and pinched and squeezed it, you could shape it into a coffee cup without adding or subtracting holes. You could also mold that same donut into a cylinder... >Just think of the possibilities. A donut that can serve as its own coffee cup. >The potential for making a fortune boggles the mind. But into what would you dunk the donut? Jeff Sc. Flatland, Ga. Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. >>>Cylinders don't have single HOLES through them. Coffee cups and donuts >>>DO. Both are in the shape of a torus, but the coffee cup is greatly deformed. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Jeff Sc. >Flatland, Ga. See my remarks about a sponge/torus for coffee drinking. It would take some thinking and working out of the fine details, but I think you would eat the cup as you drank the coffee out of it. You'd have to work quick, before the donut got saturated and started falling apart. Like I said, there are some details that need to be worked out. I'm just the idea man here. OK, this would be a distinct disadvantage at the Waffle House because you could not refill what you had eaten, but if you were the vendor, it would be great. You would sell the cups and give the coffee away. Really you wouldn't, you'd roll the coffee cost into the cup, but most customers would never catch on. Look at how many people are fooled into thinking that $69.99 is a whole lot less expensive than $70.00 Maybe the donut/cup could have an edible glaze on the outside that would hold it together when it was filled with coffee. A food specialist would know about that, not an idea man. > >>>Cylinders don't have single HOLES through them. Coffee cups and donuts > >>>DO. Both are in the shape of a torus, but the coffee cup is greatly deformed. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > before the donut got saturated and started falling apart. Like I said, there are > some details that need to be worked out. I'm just the idea man here. I don't know why you think it would get saturated. It sat under the heat lamp for 3 weeks or so already.... Designed correctly, It can sop up one cupful of coffee while you convert the cup into a second donut... Jim Stewart > Cylinders don't have single HOLES through them. That would be a tube, so long as the hole is of smaller diameter than the cylinder. > Coffee cups and donuts > DO. Both are in the shape of a torus, but the coffee cup is greatly deformed. Any shape could be described as a greatly deformed torus. (?) > Dan Mitchell > ========== [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Donuts fit inside coffee cups, right? > > But you aren't supposed to eat the cup. >>I agree it FUNCTIONS as you state, but that's NOT how it's built! The >>two parallel 'through' routes use DIFFERENT sets of rails. Except when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oh, I thought a donut was a torus while a coffee cup was a cylinder. Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? > Donuts fit inside coffee cups, right? Sometimes, a small coffee cup might fit inside a large donut. (If you can figure out whic ise is in :). > But you aren't supposed to eat the cup. Normally not recomended. The donut doesn't have a floor ... or a ceiling depending on how you are holding the coffee cup. Paul SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? Hunh. Here I thought it was an exceptionally uuuuuugleeee 1996 station wagon. SignatureSteve Caple > > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? > > Hunh. Here I thought it was an exceptionally uuuuuugleeee > 1996 station wagon. Isn't an English telephone booth? Jim Stewart > > > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? > > > > Hunh. Here I thought it was an exceptionally uuuuuugleeee > > 1996 station wagon. > > Isn't an English telephone booth? Hunh? Who? SignatureSteve Caple >> > > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Hunh? Who? That would be a Tardis. > >> Isn't an English telephone booth? > > > >Hunh? Who? > > That would be a Tardis. Hey - I rode a bus in from the country, and I was never late for class. SignatureSteve Caple >> >> Isn't an English telephone booth? >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Hey - I rode a bus in from the country, and I was never late >for class. Hello, I'm the Doctor. Doctor who? Yes, that's right. > >> > > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? > >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That would be a Tardis. The Tardis was stuck, outwardly, in British Police box mode. >> > > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Hunh? Who? Yes, exactly, the Dr., of course. > > > > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hunh? Who? For several years, I had an Internist names Hu He couldn't figure why I giggled when I asked for him... Jim Stewart >>>>>Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jim Stewart Where did he stand when he was playing baseball? > >>>>>Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > Where did he stand when he was playing baseball? He kind of crunched over behind me....He was an INTERNIST..... Jim Stewart >> For several years, I had an Internist names Hu >> He couldn't figure why I giggled when I asked for him... >> > Where did he stand when he was playing baseball? Had to be on first. SignatureJohn Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm Comparing information and knowledge is like asking whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule." -David Guaspari >Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? Not exactly. A true torus has only one surface, there is no side, inside, outside, or any of the traditional three dimendional surfaces there is only "the surface". It's sort of like a Mobius ring on steroids, except that a Mobius ring has a surface AND an edge. The torus lacks the edge. A ring torus cannot be used as a coffee cup because it has a hole with no inside wall or floor. If one were constructed from open-cell foam, it could serve somewhat as a device to contain liquids, but only in the manner of a sponge. Not an effective, or particularly useful, coffee cup. Sucking coffee from a saturated sponge is not my idea of having a large time. Not only that, but people will talk about you if you are observed doing that. Greg Procter said that any shape can be referred to as a grossly deformed torus. I agree. A stricter definition and/or description differentiating torii and cylinders is needed. One interesting thing you can do with a ring torus is turn it inside-out to form an identical torus. Every time you turn it inside-out it will be exactly the same as it was before. Sounds like fun, eh? Dear folks, The doughnut-coffee cup case is a good one. The mistake that is being made is in thinking the doughnut hole becomes the inside of the cup. It doesn't. It becomes the hole in the handle! (The cup has to be the kind with an ear). If you carve a wooden model of a torus, it does indeed have only one surface, because there aren't any edges where you can say one surface ends and another begins. A sphere is the same way, though. Cordially yours, Gerard P. >Dear folks, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Cordially yours, > Gerard P. Yes and in the same way that the above torus becomes a coffee cup, a bowl is merely a deformed sphere. I can't really subscribe to that in either case. I think the whole idea of the torus morphing into a coffee cup exceeds the limit of elasticity of the torus. I could say that Rodan's "Thinker" was a deformed torus with the hole being a passage from the mouth to the ear. Such reasoning would permit virtually anything with a hole through it to be called a deformed torus I don't think that will work. An parabolic or hyperbolic coffee cup with a recurved handle stretches the limits of acceptability even further. How all this relates to model railways is absolutely a mystery to me. > Yes and in the same way that the above torus becomes a coffee cup, a bowl is merely a > deformed sphere. That would be the half imploded sphere style coffee cup! > I can't really subscribe to that in either case. I think the whole idea > of the torus morphing into a coffee cup exceeds the limit of elasticity > of the torus. What limits? The donut shape of the torus is just it's energy conservation state. > I could say that Rodan's "Thinker" was a deformed torus with the hole > being a passage from the mouth to the ear. Such reasoning would permit > virtually anything with a hole through it to be called a deformed torus. > I don't think that will work. Worked for Rodan *8-} > An parabolic or hyperbolic coffee cup with a recurved handle stretches > the limits of acceptability even further. > > How all this relates to model railways is absolutely a mystery to me. Remember that simple oval track years and years ago? That was a slightly deformed 2-D torus!! *<8^> Paul SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX >> Yes and in the same way that the above torus becomes a coffee cup, a bowl is merely a >> deformed sphere. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Paul OK, well here's another question. It occurred to me while I was thinking about torii and spheres. In deep space where, for all intents and purposes, there is zero gravity-- ( there is actually no such place, but this is a hypothetical problem anyway so we can pretend)-- and zero atmosphere, will a volume of water left unrestrained or contained form a perfect sphere? Will it form into its shape of greatest density per unit volume, or will it simply blob, amoeba-like and drift through the void? For ease of thought and uniformity of replies let's use a volume of 100 liters of pure water. Think about it. While you are doing that, I'm going to go out into the workshop and mess around with my trains for a little while. > Will it form into its shape of greatest density per unit volume, > or will it simply blob, amoeba-like and drift through the void? It will probably disperse as a gas ... or freeze. If it freezes then the shape depends on how carefully you released it and what shape it was released in. Paul SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX On 5/1/04 6:06 PM, in article E3Wkc.10243$kh4.649306@attbi_s52, "Paul Newhouse" <rockhead.com@pimin.rockhead.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 01 May 2004 18:16:25 GMT, rockhead.com@pimin.rockhead.com (Paul >> Newhouse) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Paul That's what I was going to respond. How about a like volume of mercury instead? Or would that "freeze" too? SignatureBrian Ehni The water will not take the form of a sphere. It will in fact take the shape of an F7. Santa Fe, of course. Mike > >> Yes and in the same way that the above torus becomes a coffee cup, a bowl is merely a > >> deformed sphere. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > While you are doing that, I'm going to go out into the workshop and mess around with > my trains for a little while. >The water will not take the form of a sphere. It will in fact take the >shape of an F7. Santa Fe, of course. > >Mike Mike is the only one who got it (almost) right. Mike, it would only be a Santa-Fe eff unit if that's what you wanted to see. If you wanted to see a Florida East Coast eff unit, it would be that. Read Raychaudhuri's treatise on the subject and you will see. > >The water will not take the form of a sphere. It will in fact take the > >shape of an F7. Santa Fe, of course. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Read Raychaudhuri's treatise on the subject and you will see. Actually, string theory suggests it would take the form of a multitude of engines, depenjding on which universe it was in. No, I am not a theoritical phyisist, I just slept on a motel bed last night... James R Stewart, PhD.... >will a volume of water left unrestrained or contained form a perfect sphere?< I read somewhere once that they were experimenting making perfect ball bearings using space. I'm going to guess you would get a perfect ball of ice. Froggy@The wrote:> > OK, well here's another question. It occurred to me while I was thinking about torii > and spheres. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > While you are doing that, I'm going to go out into the workshop and mess around with > my trains for a little while. It will freeze instantly into whatever shape it was in when released. Oh, and a torus is a particular shape: "A solid in the shape of a donut, formed by rotating a circle about a line in its plane without intersecting it." Sure, it could "morph" into many other shapes, but it is then no longer a torus. Just as a sphere could morph into a cube, but it would then be a cube, not a sphere. MacIndoe >Froggy@The wrote:> >> OK, well here's another question. It occurred to me while I was thinking about torii [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >MacIndoe Someone said that a coffee cup is a slightly deformed torus. Greg Procter said words to the effect "nonsense" with which I agreed. I use US Navy coffee cups which have no ear, or handle, nor any bottom or top and are therefore invlouted oblate spheres. I ~DO~ however have a ewer which ~IS~ a torus if such a shape can legally be defined as such. It has an ear, but then so do I, however I am a Taurus, not a torus. This is distinctly different from a talus or a talon. Froggy@The wrote: ....> Someone said that a coffee cup is a slightly deformed torus. Greg Procter said words > to the effect "nonsense" with which I agreed. > I use US Navy coffee cups which have no ear, or handle, nor any bottom or top and are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as such. It has an ear, but then so do I, however I am a Taurus, not a torus. > This is distinctly different from a talus or a talon. Well, it is often said that humans are topologically equivalent to a torus :-) David >Froggy@The wrote: >....> Someone said that a coffee cup is a slightly deformed torus. Greg [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >David Perhaps, but that is stretching it a bit<G> Incorrect. Humans have SEVERAL interconnected holes and internal passages. More like a swiss cheese. Dan Mitchell ========== > Froggy@The wrote: > ....> Someone said that a coffee cup is a slightly deformed torus. Greg [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > David >Incorrect. Humans have SEVERAL interconnected holes and internal >passages. More like a swiss cheese. > >Dan Mitchell >========== What kind of Swiss Cheese? They make many kinds of cheeses in Switzerland. I like them all. ................F> Smartaz, GA. >In deep space where, for all intents and purposes, there is zero gravity-- ( there is >actually no such place, but this is a hypothetical problem anyway so we can >pretend)-- and zero atmosphere, will a volume of water left unrestrained or contained >form a perfect sphere? >Will it form into its shape of greatest density per unit volume, or will it simply >blob, amoeba-like and drift through the void? There's still molecular forces, and 100 litres of water has it's own gravitational force... Jeff Sc Physics R Us, Ga. Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. >>In deep space where, for all intents and purposes, there is zero gravity-- ( there is >>actually no such place, but this is a hypothetical problem anyway so we can [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. And thus, the answer is...................................????? > >Dear folks, > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > How all this relates to model railways is absolutely a mystery to me. Once read a story where one last bypass was added to the Boston Subway System, making it into a mobius strip...Does traction count? Jim Stewart >Once read a story where one last bypass was added to the Boston Subway >System, making it >into a mobius strip...Does traction count? > >Jim Stewart Armin Deutsch wrote the story, the Kingston Trio made it into a song. Both are true according to some sources. ...................F> Enquiring Minds Want to Know, GA. Aside from the delightful offtopic that the word topology has created - BTW, a torus is a one hole surface and the coffee cup and the donut are the same topologically as the cup part of the coffee cup is just a minor distortion of the surface that is of no concequence for the math type. The double slip switch has a set of points and frogs on each of the tracks coming into the thing thus it is 4 turnouts, not two. A single slip switch has two turnouts as only two of the legs of the trackage have points and frogs on them. -- Bob May Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. Works every time it is tried! > >> The above is, in my view, misleading. A double slip does not have the > >> functionality of a double crossover at all. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > with simultaneous moves, a double slip does not. The double slip is > two turnouts squashed together. A double slip has four sets of points in addition to a centre crossing, even though it has the same routing functions as two turnouts toe to toe. Regards, Greg.P. I agree with what you say, but find from experience that many modelers can't understand the notion of a 'lap' switch. A double slip IS the equivalent of a double crossover, so long as only ONE train at a time uses it. You are, of course. correct that a double crossover allows two trains to pass each other IN the switchwork, that cannot be done in a double slip (at least not without some excitement). :-( The confusion over 'lap' switches is why most consider the common double lap switch to be a 'three way' switch. It's NOT. Dan Mitchell ========== > >A 'double' slip switch can be though of as a 'routing' crossing. Choose > >any ONE of the four tracks to enter the switch, and you can choose to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> > Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. >I agree with what you say, but find from experience that many modelers >can't understand the notion of a 'lap' switch. A double slip IS the >equivalent of a double crossover, so long as only ONE train at a time >uses it. You are, of course. correct that a double crossover allows two >trains to pass each other IN the switchwork, that cannot be done in a >double slip (at least not without some excitement). :-( I don't think it can be done even with the excitement added<G> I think you would have to get Ray Bradbury in on the project before it would work. He did something similar on Mars many years ago. >The confusion over 'lap' switches is why most consider the common double >lap switch to be a 'three way' switch. It's NOT. Congratulations! Now you can try explaining the difference between drills, drill motors and bits, and explain why there is no such thing as a "drill bit". Oh yeah, while you're at it you can also illuminate the masses regarding the incorrect use of the term "lashup" to mean "consist". Good luck! ....................F> Etymology, GA. No thanks, Froggy! :-( I got involved in the 'drill bit' issue both here and in the metalworker's newsgroup <rec.crafts.metalworking >. That went on for weeks, with about twenty vocal supports for each position. There are points to be made on BOTH sides (and perhaps a few MORE sides as well). The real answer is lost in the mists of time somewhere back a few centuries ago. Shall we restart the "Switch" vs. "Turnout" mess while we're at it? Dan Mitchell ========== Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >I agree with what you say, but find from experience that many modelers > >can't understand the notion of a 'lap' switch. A double slip IS the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > ....................F> > Etymology, GA. >No thanks, Froggy! :-( > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Dan Mitchell >========== Yas Suh ! I'm game if you are <VBG> Froggy@The Pond.com wrote to D. Mitchell: > Congratulations! > Now you can try explaining the difference between drills, drill motors and > bits, and explain why there is no such thing as a "drill bit". > Oh yeah, while you're at it you can also illuminate the masses regarding > the incorrect use of the term "lashup" to mean "consist". > Good luck! Oh, and let's not forget about whether a revolver is or is not a pistol. SignatureJohn Miller South Etymology, GA Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm We don't believe in rheumatism and true love until after the first attack. -Marie Ebner von Eschenbach >Froggy@The Pond.com wrote to D. Mitchell: >> Congratulations! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Oh, and let's not forget about whether a revolver is or is not a pistol. Like I told Dan, I'm game if you are. Which side do you want to take? > Like I told Dan, I'm game if you are. > Which side do you want to take? Sorry...I'm not game. (But if I were, I'd take the more permissive of the two positions. :-) SignatureJohn Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm The sight of death frightens them [Earthers]. -Kras the Klingon, "Friday's Child", stardate 3497.2 > Froggy@The Pond.com wrote to D. Mitchell: > > Congratulations! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oh, and let's not forget about whether a revolver is or is not a pistol. So we won't go in to how yanks shoot their guns? Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >I agree with what you say, but find from experience that many modelers > >can't understand the notion of a 'lap' switch. A double slip IS the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Oh yeah, while you're at it you can also illuminate the masses regarding the > incorrect use of the term "lashup" to mean "consist". "Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. >"Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. Please elaborate. This should be interesting. Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >"Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. > > Please elaborate. > This should be interesting. Dictionary definition: Consist (v.i.) to be composed of: be comprised or contained in. (Oxford dictionary) There is no entry "Consist (n)", but if we try, by mental gymnastics to create a noun form of the word we end up regarding the individual physical contents or components of an action. 8^P The first time I read the word "consist" in a RM magazine (after circa 30 years of being a railway and model railway enthusiast) all I could come up with was "Huhh? What the hell are they on about". There's no way to get from the word to the meaning without being "in the know". (I must admit also to having a problem in reading about "gas electrics" - what sort of gas? where are the big bags? etc) Regards, Greg.P. >>>"Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What the hell are they on about". > There's no way to get from the word to the meaning without being "in the know". If you're going to say it's incorrect as used by US railways, use an American dictionary. Look at the noun definition of "consist" at Merriam-Webster: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=consist "makeup or composition (as of coal sizes or a railroad train) by classes, types, or grades and arrangement" > >>>"Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > If you're going to say it's incorrect as used by US railways, use an American > dictionary. Why would anyone want to use a US dictionary? > Look at the noun definition of "consist" at Merriam-Webster: > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=consist > "makeup or composition (as of coal sizes or a railroad train) by classes, > types, or grades and arrangement" OK, so your US dictionary lists current US misuses of words - there's still no way from the word to the meaning in real terms. >> >>>"Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Why would anyone want to use a US dictionary? Those of us who reside in North America find them exceedingly useful. It is not necessary for North America and New Zealand to have identical etymological parameters. It doesn't make either group more correct or more wrong. There are always minor differences in such things. Even within the USA there are regional etymologies that differ slightly. It has to do with our enormous size and cultural diversity. New Zealand is about the same size as the states of Georgia and Alabama combined, 268,677 square kilometers for NZ and 281,451 square kilometers for GA and AL. You will find extremely little etymological differences between GA and AL, but you will find a great difference between them and Connecticut/Massachusetts, which are over a thousand miles away, yet still in the same country. Such is the nature of man. We do not speak the same English that our pre-Columbian predecessors did and our descendants will not speak the same English we do. Such is the unavoidable nature of things. English is a living language; a very highly adaptable and fluid living language that grows and changes with need and convenience. I am amused to imagine what a very prim and proper Elizabethan Englishman might have to say about the language that either you or I speak today. No doubt he would be greatly upset with the degree to which we have corrupted the language. So it is with each generation. Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >> >>>"Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Those of us who reside in North America find them exceedingly useful. I can imagine - you have all those idiots making up new meanings for existing words when we already have several hundred thousand of them to cover almost every possible situation. > It is not necessary for North America and New Zealand to have identical etymological > parameters. It doesn't make either group more correct or more wrong. There are > always minor differences in such things. Even within the USA there are regional > etymologies that differ slightly. It has to do with our enormous size and cultural > diversity. > New Zealand is about the same size as the states of Georgia and Alabama combined, Hey, don't go getting rude! > 268,677 square kilometers for NZ and 281,451 square kilometers for GA and AL. You > will find extremely little etymological differences between GA and AL, but you will > find a great difference between them and Connecticut/Massachusetts, which are over a > thousand miles away, yet still in the same country. New Zealand spreads over 2000miles from end to end. > Such is the nature of man. We do > not speak the same English that our pre-Columbian predecessors did and our [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > language that either you or I speak today. No doubt he would be greatly upset with > the degree to which we have corrupted the language. US english has many components that are much closer to 1776 English than the British use today. I'm not really rubbishing US english other than the very recent collection of non-logical misadditions such as "consist". oh, and "gas" for "gasoline". > So it is with each generation. There has been a massive increase in the last 20 odd years of such idiotic and non-sensical terms. Everytime that this discussion of English vs.US usage of words happens, I get reminded of a joke about the difference. An elderly English dowager is on vacation in America and in registering at a nice posh hotel and going to the room, as she is tipping the bellboy, she says "Come knock me up about 7 in the morning." Now, to an Englishman, this may be "normal' speech, but to an American, knocking somebody up is having sex with the woman and getting her pregnant! OOPTH! -- Bob May Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. Works every time it is tried! > Everytime that this discussion of English vs.US usage of words happens, I > get reminded of a joke about the difference. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > knocking somebody up is having sex with the woman and getting her pregnant! > OOPTH! I was at one of those corporate improvement courses where the US guest speaker commented on "fanny patting" as being barely pc. He was puzzled by the audience's response which of course related to the English language "fanny" being a slightly different part of a womans anatomy. > I can imagine - you have all those idiots making up new meanings for existing words when > we already have several hundred thousand of them to cover almost every possible > situation. Hey - it's the Oxford English Dictionary which added bling-bling to the dictionary. > > I can imagine - you have all those idiots making up new meanings for > existing words when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hey - it's the Oxford English Dictionary which added bling-bling to the > dictionary. Ouch!! Hey, I'm not particularly attacking the USa as such, it's this carry on of making up senseless terms. For example, there's a NZ company presently advertising it's "Table spread" on TV. Why the hell would anyone want to spread a table, or spread something edible on a table? I know that it is a substitute for butter, magarine etc for spreading on bread, crackers or whatever, but their term doesn't tell me that. In the same way "consist" doesn't tell me that you're talking about turning multiple locos in to a singly controllable loco unit, any more than calling them an "Albert" would. Regards, Greg.P. >For example, there's a NZ company presently advertising it's "Table spread" >on TV. Why the hell would anyone want to spread a table, or spread something [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >turning multiple locos in to a singly controllable loco unit, any more than >calling them an "Albert" would. Sounds like you should be speaking German, where words mean what they mean, and hte language is basically static. Up here, we've learned to adapt and change. Besides, jargon is an accepted form of communication, and railway workers in the US know what a consist is, just as they have no need to know what the function of a plate-layer is. After all, why would we need to lay a plate? Sounds like something that would require a table spread... I know what is meant by "consist", and so do you. If you don't, all you have to do is ask - that's why we're here...welll, most of us, anyway. Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. > >For example, there's a NZ company presently advertising it's "Table spread" > >on TV. Why the hell would anyone want to spread a table, or spread something [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sounds like you should be speaking German, where words mean what they > mean, and hte language is basically static. Err well, I read it. > Up here, we've learned to adapt and change. That's nice, but we don't all live in the one country but some things are becoming "international". > Besides, jargon is an > accepted form of communication, It's basically rubbish. Fine perhaps if you have a narrow life and never look outside it's confines. > and railway workers in the US know > what a consist is, just as they have no need to know what the function > of a plate-layer is. After all, why would we need to lay a plate? The "plate" in question is actually a plate - it's a steel plate that sits between the rail and the sleeper (or tie) to extend the life of the sleeper and give the rail a more solid foundation. There's the advantage of giving things names that reflect their function, you can figure out what they are from the name! > Sounds like something that would require a table spread... > > I know what is meant by "consist", and so do you. Yes of course I know the meaning of consist, but the first time I came across it I did not know, the meaning didn't leap out even in context (Model Railroader) and there was no internet. > If you don't, all > you have to do is ask - that's why we're here...welll, most of us, > anyway. I keep a watch on this ng in the hope of learning something. > Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. Who? What? Where? Which? How? >Who? What? Where? Which? How? ...thus demonstrating his wide experience and knowledge of everything contained within the wide world... Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. > >Who? What? Where? Which? How? > > ...thus demonstrating his wide experience and knowledge of everything > contained within the wide world... Thus Jeff SC. demonstrates his complete inability to answer simple and basic questions. >> >Who? What? Where? Which? How? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Thus Jeff SC. demonstrates his complete inability to answer simple and >basic questions. Me. This thing. Here. This one. This way. Simple answers for a simple man. Now do you feel enlightened? Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. > >> >Who? What? Where? Which? How? > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Simple answers for a simple man. Now do you feel enlightened? No, but answers from simple people often leave me feeling that way. Why are we fighting? Regards, Greg.P. >> >> >Who? What? Where? Which? How? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Why are we fighting? Who's fighting? Not me... Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. > > >For example, there's a NZ company presently advertising it's "Table spread" > > >on TV. [snip] Fine perhaps if you have a narrow life and never look > outside it's confines. [snip] For someone who professes to be a stickler for correct usage, it would be nice if you learned that the possessive "its" has no apostrophe. Also, although "currently" is now an accepted meaning for "presently," that has come about through common (mis)usage; the traditional meaning of the word is "soon." -- Bill McC. > > > >For example, there's a NZ company presently advertising it's > "Table spread" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that has come about through common (mis)usage; the traditional meaning > of the word is "soon." That's a pretty assessment of my grammatical abilities. I did not profess to be a stickler for correct usage, I professed to be annoyed by non-descriptive names being applied to objects and actions and also by inappropriate use of jargon in an international forum. Regards, Greg.P. >> and railway workers in the US know >> what a consist is, just as they have no need to know what the function [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >There's the advantage of giving things names that reflect their function, you can >figure out what they are from the name! The term 'platelayers' originated long before the steel plates you describe came into use. It comes from the pre-railway era of 'plateways'. Check up on your early railway history eg the 'Surrey Iron Railway' and 'Peak Forest Tramway'. The plates were the cast iron pieces that spanned between stone blocks to keep cart wheels out of the mud and ruts thus greatly increasing the haulage efficiency of a horse. Shows how names stick from past activity and thus bear no relation to the current function. Similar story for 'Navvies'. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. > >> and railway workers in the US know > >> what a consist is, just as they have no need to know what the function [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > describe came into use. It comes from the pre-railway era of > 'plateways'. That is the "railway era" which still continues today. > Check up on your early railway history eg the 'Surrey > Iron Railway' and 'Peak Forest Tramway'. The plates were the cast > iron pieces that spanned between stone blocks to keep cart wheels out > of the mud and ruts thus greatly increasing the haulage efficiency of > a horse. Roll your history back a little further. Iron plates were placed on the wooden rails of coal tramways to extend the life of those rails. > Shows how names stick from past activity and thus bear no relation to > the current function. Similar story for 'Navvies'. When the current function still deserves the term, who is to say. > There has been a massive increase in the last 20 odd years of such idiotic > and non-sensical terms. ...while in New Zealand, English usage remains impeccable, if am I reading you correctly. (By the way, do you really hyphenate "nonsensical" in NZ?) SignatureJohn Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm Q: What's the difference between Bell Labs and the Boy Scouts? A: The Boy Scouts have adult supervision. > > There has been a massive increase in the last 20 odd years of such idiotic > > and non-sensical terms. > > ...while in New Zealand, English usage remains impeccable, if am I reading > you correctly. No, but I at least now live in the world, not just in a narrow society where eveyone knows what everyone else means by a small sequence of grunts. > (By the way, do you really hyphenate "nonsensical" in NZ?) That depends upon the emphasis I'm intending when I write the word - think about the difference between "nonsensical" and "non-sensical". Regards, Greg.P. > > If you're going to say it's incorrect as used by US railways, use an American > > dictionary. > > Why would anyone want to use a US dictionary? Because you were saying the term was wrong as used by *US* railways, you loon. > > > If you're going to say it's incorrect as used by US railways, use an > American [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Because you were saying the term was wrong as used by *US* railways, you > loon. This is an international forum. >>>> If you're going to say it's incorrect as used by US railways, >>>> use an American dictionary. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This is an international forum. Sure it is... but if you're going to claim that a term is incorrect as used by U.S. railways, then at least refer to the U.S. definition of the word. >>>>> If you're going to say it's incorrect as used by US railways, >>>>> use an American dictionary. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sure it is... but if you're going to claim that a term is incorrect as used > by U.S. railways, then at least refer to the U.S. definition of the word. You are attempting to reason with the clown who declared the US was violating the law by "flying" in the Iraqi "No Fly" Zone. His penchant for pedantic drivel is truly astounding. At first I thought it was deliberate and contrived but, I have come to believe it's just who he is. He seems to go in cycles so I'm guessing his meds get out of balance. Remember, killfiles are your friend. Paul SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX > >>>>> If you're going to say it's incorrect as used by US railways, > >>>>> use an American dictionary. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Paul So go file yourself, Paul. The discussion about the Shah of Iraq was a joke on a number of idiots who claimed to be vastly more knowledgeable on the subject of the ME - they took 18 months to notice my ongoing joke. The broad point I am attempting to make is that jargon is fine in narrow circles or groups, not so good in international forums. The specific point I was making is that the word "consist" does not describe the item it is applied to and is therefore basically meaningless to those outside the specific jargon clique. Your point seems to be that I irritate you because you don't like to think and therefore you advocate pulling your head back under your rock where the light can't penetrate. Regards, Greg.P. <snip> > > Remember, killfiles are your friend. > > > So go file yourself, Paul. <snip> > The broad point I am attempting to make is that jargon is fine in narrow circles > or groups, not so good in international forums. > The specific point I was making is that the word "consist" does not describe the > item it is applied to and is therefore basically meaningless to those outside the > specific jargon clique. <snip> We have an international group here, but also a model railroad group. I expect any group to use their own jargon so I can expect general usage jargon and slang *as well as* railroad terms from various countries. As an American, I don't generally know what terms are unfamiliar to people from other countries, so how am I going to use universally understood terminology, even if it exists? As far as using descriptive terms goes: I worked as a switchman for a full-sized railroad at one time and the diesel shop was called the "roundhouse" by everyone who worked there, although it was certainly not round. Should I explain to everyone, now, why it was called the "roundhouse?" I think this forum is all the more interesting because of the diversity of language, and I've learned a lot from it. A different Paul, Paul Welsh > As an American, I don't generally know what terms are unfamiliar to > people from other countries, so how am I going to use universally > understood terminology, even if it exists? There is no such a thing as "universally understood terminology". Even English words mean different things in different countries. Bonnet and boot to an American are articles of clothing, to someone from Britain they are parts of a car/truck. > As far as using descriptive terms goes: I worked as a switchman for a > full-sized railroad at one time and the diesel shop was called the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > A different Paul, Paul Welsh Agreed, any open minded person with a desire to learn will only enrich their experience by learning about diversity, not wanting everyone to conform to his/her particular way of thinking/talking. It is when we look outside of our normal "little world" that we learn and grow. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > > As an American, I don't generally know what terms are unfamiliar to > > people from other countries, so how am I going to use universally [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > his/her particular way of thinking/talking. It is when we look outside of > our normal "little world" that we learn and grow. I am as enriched as I want to be. I would like to know about SLIP SWITCHES on model railroads. James R Stewart >I am as enriched as I want to be. I would like to know about SLIP SWITCHES >on model railroads. > >James R Stewart What would you like to know? I'm sure that we all would enjoy the topic. Ask some questions to get the thing started. > >I am as enriched as I want to be. I would like to know about SLIP SWITCHES > >on model railroads. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm sure that we all would enjoy the topic. Ask some questions to get the thing > started. How do you do the wiring? Should DCC be different from DC? Will one work on a tight curve? Peco vs Shinohara? I have a ten by 10 room and am TRYING to make passenger division point activity..... I am not against anyone saying whatever they want, I do some myself. But I do wish I could read a thread that talked about something important to me without mostly offtopic there. Jim >How do you do the wiring? That's pretty much where we started, exactly the same as the two turnouts its equivalent to. The two outside rails are plus and minus, the left frog is switched by the right blades, the right frog by the left blades. Four wires go to the rails, one to each side and one to each of the frogs. The K crossings are each connected to the nearest outside rail. >Should DCC be different from DC? No. >Will one work on a tight curve? Depends, but generally not a good idea. >Peco vs Shinohara? Forget, build your own. >I have a ten by 10 room and am TRYING to make passenger division point >activity..... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >read a thread that talked about something important to me without mostly >offtopic there. After you have had the various views presented the topic either dies or sparks an OK discussion like this one went to Torii. Unless you ask follow up questions. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. > >How do you do the wiring? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > each of the frogs. The K crossings are each connected to the nearest > outside rail. If I have 2 blocks east separated by insulators, can I include the device in the two blocks west (like a crossover) or should I make it a miniblock? (isolated from other blocks) Jim Stewart >> >How do you do the wiring? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >in the two blocks west (like a crossover) or should I make it a miniblock? >(isolated from other blocks) How you arrange blocks depends on the functions of the various tracks and where they go to next. so you can do either of these depending on circumstances. I would not expect to see the arrangement you describe in running lines, the double slip usually occurs in combination with other formations. However if all the tracks, two east and two west are through running lines then it may be appropriate to have a seperate mini block for the slip. I would arrange it to be fed from two of the other blocks, east or west depending on switch settings to avoid an extra block selector on the panel. If some of the tracks are sidings it may well be better to feed the sidings in self isolating fashion reducing block selectors still further. And with dcc eliminate blocks altogether and just have the basic frog switching. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. > >> >How do you do the wiring? > >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> > Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. Perhaps you need to know more about my application. I am building a four track station (aka Newark, NJ) but not with as much trackage. I was going to have the four converge into two mainlines with double crossovers between (Remember I said I am trying to do this round the wall in a 10x10 room) the two mains feed back into the other end of the station. Now I have decided to add a lead to each pair of station tracks. I want to have a crossover at the center of this lead to the start of the other pair. This could be two back to back turnouts or a double crossover in a traditional tight spot on passenger inlet to station. I am using tight radius for passenger (18 inches) but intend to cover most of the turns with city scenery. (No, not the turnouts.) ultimately, I want to play with (experiment) CTC for having each track be bydirectional. I have students who are drooling over such a control project using ladder logic and a manufacturer who would like to see how it is done. I also want to prototype signal for Penn 1942.....That is a major research project, yet.... I do not want to go with DCC because the blocks will make control easior for this instance. When I have a real basement, club room, etc then I can modify this test road into a module. The design is being built ultra light so that it can be moved as 3 by 8 foot units. It will sit on four 6 foot tables so most of the serious framing will not be required. If this is a little incoherent, I have 250 students who expect their papers for the semester all to be graded by tomorrow...It is high stress time for a 64 year old.... Jim Stewart >> Keith >> Make friends in the hobby. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >prototype signal >for Penn 1942.....That is a major research project, yet.... Jim, I'm not sure I have a clear picture of how these 'leads' are meant to connect. Its probably better to take this discussion off group so we can exchange drawings. Does your email addy in here work? Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. In the basic two mains to the 4 tracks, I can see a pair of slipswitches to do the turnouts from the station side of the double crossover. The train enters the trackwork, crossing a single turnout which is the double crossover and then the doulbe slip which is the station side of the double crossover. This allows for the train to access any of the 4 tracks of the station from either of the main tracks. -- Bob May Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. Works every time it is tried! > > As an American, I don't generally know what terms are unfamiliar to > > people from other countries, so how am I going to use universally [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Bonnet and boot to an American are articles of clothing, to someone from > Britain they are parts of a car/truck. Trunk and Hood in English are a big suitcase and the folding roof cover on a convertable. > > As far as using descriptive terms goes: I worked as a switchman for a > > full-sized railroad at one time and the diesel shop was called the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > N Scale - Credit Valley Railway > www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > <snip> > > > Remember, killfiles are your friend. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > expect any group to use their own jargon so I can expect general usage > jargon and slang *as well as* railroad terms from various countries. OK, I'll throw a (US) term in for you to play with: "Railroad" vs "Railway". I read a discussion in MR magazine in the late '60s or early '70s - the bottom line was that around a third of US rail systems were called "Railways" - the US hobby now universally calls them "Railroads" - what happened? > As an American, I don't generally know what terms are unfamiliar to > people from other countries, so how am I going to use universally > understood terminology, even if it exists? It doesn't exist, but once a group like the NMRA creates a standard for terminology the diversity begins to die. > As far as using descriptive terms goes: I worked as a switchman What is a "switchman"? (I genuinely don't know what the precise position is) > for a > full-sized railroad at one time and the diesel shop was called the > "roundhouse" by everyone who worked there, although it was certainly not > round. Should I explain to everyone, now, why it was called the > "roundhouse?" If you think it important that those reading should understand, then yes. > I think this forum is all the more interesting because of the diversity > of language, and I've learned a lot from it. I'm a New Zealander modelling old time German railroads - I'm arguing _for_ diversity of language. (and descriptive terms if they must be standardised) Regards, the one and only Greg.P. Takaka, NZ. > > We have an international group here, but also a model railroad group. I > > expect any group to use their own jargon so I can expect general usage [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that around a third of US rail systems were called "Railways" - the US hobby now > universally calls them "Railroads" - what happened? I think the hobby followed the prototype, but why did the industry do this?--I don't know. Either is a descriptive term, though, and not likely to cause confusion. > > As an American, I don't generally know what terms are unfamiliar to > > people from other countries, so how am I going to use universally [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What is a "switchman"? (I genuinely don't know what the precise position is) An interesting example. The term is descriptive in that it defines a job where the person has something to do with switches. It could be a switch repairman, a towerman that throws switches at an interlocking, or what I did, or something else. I was a member of the Switchmen's Union of North America. I pulled the uncoupling levers on cars, applied/released hand brakes, threw switches (turnouts) on the ground, gave hand signals to the locomotive engineer (locomotive driver in the U.K. and, perhaps, elsewhere) to direct his movements, etc. Some folks in North America would call this a "brakeman's" (another descriptive term) job, and it was. The difference was: a switchmen worked only within the yard limits and the brakemen only outside the yard limits. So the difference in terminology was a creation of the North American labor unions and unlikely to be carried to other countries. I believe that in the U.K., "brakemen" are called "guards," but not sure if there is an equivalent to "switchmen." I'm not even sure the terms "switchman" and "brakeman" are used on prototype railroads in the U.S./Canada any more. I understand "brakemen" are now called "assistance engineers" on at least one railroad. I have no clue what terminology might be used in New Zealand. > > for a > > full-sized railroad at one time and the diesel shop was called the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If you think it important that those reading should understand, then yes. In general I agree, but it must be done very sparingly and only if the term is central to the argument. Look how much text it to explain "switchman" although it could be reduced for a quicky definition. Mostly we must depend upon readers to know the lingo. > > I think this forum is all the more interesting because of the diversity > > of language, and I've learned a lot from it. > > I'm a New Zealander modelling old time German railroads - I'm arguing _for_ diversity > of language. (and descriptive terms if they must be standardised) I tend to agree, but the context of the usage is very important. For railroad workers and those operating on my layout, I think there is a certain charm to calling a cubical diesel shop "the roundhouse." This term was originally used to describe the circular buildings, built around turntables, used to house steam engines. The "roundhouse" became "the place where they house locomotives" rather than a describer of the shape of a building. In fact, "the roundhouse" may include the fuel track, the ready track, or any other track that is designated just for locomotives. If I write an article for a prototype railroad journal, I would not use the term "roundhouse" and would confine the term "diesel shop" to the building used to repair and inspect locomotives. One supposedly descriptive term that I would like to see die is "wide cab" because it is purports to be descriptive, but is a lie. "Wide cab" locomotives are the same width inside and out as any other cab. Paul Welsh ...............<snip>............ >One supposedly descriptive term that I would like to see die is "wide >cab" because it is purports to be descriptive, but is a lie. "Wide cab" >locomotives are the same width inside and out as any other cab. > >Paul Welsh I have often asked users of the term "wide cab" if a locomotive with a wide cab can pass another that also has a wide cab, or even if a wide cab can pass a "regular" cab locomotive. One fellow responded that the wide cabs are wider ~INSIDE~ and have much more room inside. I asked him if he had somehow confused a locomotive with a tardis, but I don't think he knew what I meant. LOL! Same size outside, but much larger inside. Neat trick eh? Those lads at EMD are always coming up with them. > > > We have an international group here, but also a model railroad group. I > > > expect any group to use their own jargon so I can expect general usage [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > creation of the North American labor unions and unlikely to be carried > to other countries. Sounds to me like you were a "yard(s)man". > I believe that in the U.K., "brakemen" are called "guards," The "guard" is the senior member of the train crew. > but not sure > if there is an equivalent to "switchmen." I'm not even sure the terms [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I have no clue what terminology might be used in New Zealand. New Zealand railways used a mix of US, British and homegrown technology but organisationally the terminology mostly came from Britain. Westinghouse brakes became standard so long before I existed that "breakmen" and the like were long forgotten. Of course, your explanation brings up new queations - "interlocking" and "tower" are, I assume, a "signal box"? Why two different names? > > > for a > > > full-sized railroad at one time and the diesel shop was called the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > would not use the term "roundhouse" and would confine the term "diesel > shop" to the building used to repair and inspect locomotives. We call them all "Loco depots". > One supposedly descriptive term that I would like to see die is "wide > cab" because it is purports to be descriptive, but is a lie. "Wide cab" > locomotives are the same width inside and out as any other cab. I agree, but you're about as likely to see that one disappear as I am to see "consist" disappear. At long last, the English speaking modellers are dropping "points" to describe "turnouts", a mis-term that was given by tinplate manufacturers way back in the 1900s! Regards, Greg.P. "Gregory Procter" > At long last, the English speaking modellers are dropping "points" to describe "turnouts", a > mis-term that was given by tinplate manufacturers way back in the 1900s! AFAIK, UK railwaymen still call 'em "points" and North American railroaders still call 'em "switches". It's only the model press and model railroaders that seem to call 'em "turnouts". And non-operating staff on railways. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ > It's only the model press and model railroaders that seem to call 'em > "turnouts". And non-operating staff on railways. I believe that was an NMRA started convention. Switches are electric switches for throwing turnouts. Turnouts are pieces of railway track that branch into two lines and are controlled electrically by switches. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > "Roger T." > > It's only the model press and model railroaders that seem to call 'em > > "turnouts". And non-operating staff on railways. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Turnouts are pieces of railway track that branch into two lines and are > controlled electrically by switches. :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To the NMRA when the railway already has a term that all railroaders use. "Switches" they are, and "Switches" they will remain. If you want to call something by a name, call electrical switches, "toggles". Like those weird hand signals the NMRA created rather than using railroad hand signals. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ >>It's only the model press and model railroaders that seem to call 'em >>"turnouts". And non-operating staff on railways. > > I believe that was an NMRA started convention. (snip) > Turnouts are pieces of railway track that branch into two lines and are > controlled electrically by switches. If that's the case, then what's the correct name for a point/switch/turnout (strike out whichever term/s you disagree with) where the controlling mechanism is either mechanical (rods and linkages) or manual (whacking your finger into the middle of the track and changing the alignment)? > >>It's only the model press and model railroaders that seem to call 'em > >>"turnouts". And non-operating staff on railways. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > or manual (whacking your finger into the middle of the track and > changing the alignment)? One moves the points to realign the turnout. - works in both English and US cases. >"Gregory Procter" > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Home of the Great Eastern Railway >http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ On the Southern Railway (US) we referred to them as either turnouts or switches. Use was indiscriminate. A replacement "switch" rode to the jobsite on a specially constructed "turnout" car. Go figure................F> > "Gregory Procter" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > AFAIK, UK railwaymen still call 'em "points" and North American railroaders > still call 'em "switches". Bother! > It's only the model press and model railroaders that seem to call 'em > "turnouts". And non-operating staff on railways. Well, buying a "set of points" in a model shop might result in a smaller package than if you ask for a "turnout". Asking for a "switch" might result in anything from a list of goods known as "switches". Probably operating staff of railways rarely go to the railway shop to make the full size purchase. Regards, Greg.P. >"Gregory Procter" > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Cheers >Roger T. If you purchase a set of points in North America, you have something to install into your automobile's ignition system. If you go to the hobby store/model train shop and ask for a switch, you will have to clarify whether you want a track switch (turnout) or an electrical switch (toggle, rotary, etc.). If you ask for a set of points a member of the staff will, most likely, refer you to the nearest auto parts store. If you ask for a turnout, you will probably get what you want. > >> At long last, the English speaking modellers are dropping "points" to > >describe "turnouts", a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the nearest auto parts store. > If you ask for a turnout, you will probably get what you want. Who mentioned auto parts? We're talking railroading, or at the least, model railroading and every railroader and or model railroader should know what a "switch" is. It ain't electrical, unless you say "On/Off Switch". Plain ole "switch" to a railroader is something that you go "throw", or "get", or "line" plus, I'm sure, several more local terms. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ >Who mentioned auto parts? I did. A set of points is something for your automobile. > It ain't electrical, unless you say "On/Off Switch". Not to PUSH anyone's BUTTONS, but in a MOMENTARY lapse of PCness I went to a bar to see a DWARF tossing exhibition. Instead it was wrestling night, and the TAG team action featuring Big Eddie Kulikowski was fierce, with SINGLE POLE DOUBLE THROWS until he managed to TOUCH his partner and then we were treated to a beautifully choreographed DOUBLE POLE DOUBLE THROW, but it soon REVERSEd into a THREE-WAY until the referee made them STOP. Luckily no one pulled a KNIFE, not even a teeny tiny little MICRO one - there are LIMITS. SignatureSteve Caple > > >> At long last, the English speaking modellers are dropping "points" to > > >describe "turnouts", a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > railroader is something that you go "throw", or "get", or "line" plus, I'm > sure, several more local terms. I've been a model railroader for 45 years and a switch is an electrical item to me. >AFAIK, UK railwaymen still call 'em "points" and North American railroaders >still call 'em "switches". > >It's only the model press and model railroaders that seem to call 'em >"turnouts". And non-operating staff on railways. Well, not exactly. A current CSX employee, who has been around and knows of what he speaks (and is certainly a member of the operating staff), told me that the "switch" is the moving part of the "turnout" (I could have this reversed) Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. On Tue, 4 May 2004 22:42:52 UTC, "Roger T." <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote: 2000 > It's only the model press and model railroaders that seem to call 'em > "turnouts". And non-operating staff on railways. My Southern Pacific Common Standard Drawings call them both turnouts and switches. They are not consistent. Properly the switch is the movable part, i.e. the points. Signatureernie fisch > I believe that in the U.K., "brakemen" are called "guards," but not > sure if there is an equivalent to "switchmen." On UK/Australian/NZ railways, the guard would be the equivalent of the conductor on a US railroad. The equivalent of a switchman would be a shunter. > > I believe that in the U.K., "brakemen" are called "guards," but not > > sure if there is an equivalent to "switchmen." > > On UK/Australian/NZ railways, the guard would be the equivalent of the > conductor on a US railroad. The equivalent of a switchman would be a > shunter. In the UK, freight trains didn't/don't carry a switching crew with them. In the Good Old days, each station provided the ground crew for switching at each station. A "Goods Train" crew consisted of a Driver, Fireman and Guard. Three men only. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ > > > I believe that in the U.K., "brakemen" are called "guards," but not > > > sure if there is an equivalent to "switchmen." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > each station. A "Goods Train" crew consisted of a Driver, Fireman and > Guard. Three men only. In NZ the crew is now down to two men only - they are the switching crew in many cases. >> On UK/Australian/NZ railways, the guard would be the equivalent of >> the conductor on a US railroad. The equivalent of a switchman would >> be a shunter. > In the UK, freight trains didn't/don't carry a switching crew with > them. Indeed, no. I was offering English language equivalents to the US terms only, not suggesting that the work practices were the same. > In the Good Old days, each station provided the ground crew for > switching at each station. A "Goods Train" crew consisted of a > Driver, Fireman and Guard. Three men only. As was mostly the case in Australia. An interesting exception were pick-up or trip trains, which would often have an additional guard on board to assist at locations where shunting took place, but there was no permanent staff on hand. >The difference >was: a switchmen worked only within the yard limits and the brakemen >only outside the yard limits. So the difference in terminology was a >creation of the North American labor unions and unlikely to be carried >to other countries. >I'm not even sure the terms >"switchman" and "brakeman" are used on prototype railroads in the >U.S./Canada any more. Paul, In some cases, the term "brakeman" has been succeeded by "utility man," though the functions are the same. A utility man works in the yard, though I've worked as a brakeman on a local, and as switchman (utility man) in the yard. CSX generally calls the utility position a "switchman." Dieter Zakas Actually, the "wide" cabs are no wider than the old "narrow" cabs and really don't even describe the cab itself but rather the nose of the loco. The "narrow" cab has a typical GP/SD nose while the "wide" cabs have a version of the cab that was first applied to the FP-45 locos. -- Bob May Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. Works every time it is tried! >OK, I'll throw a (US) term in for you to play with: "Railroad" vs "Railway". >I read a discussion in MR magazine in the late '60s or early '70s - the bottom line was >that around a third of US rail systems were called "Railways" - the US hobby now >universally calls them "Railroads" - what happened? It's a legal fiction. XYZ Railroad" goes bankrupt, reorganizes as "XYZ Railway" - thus keeping its identity while shedding all its fiscal responsibilities. We in the hobby are just lazy. We can't even get out of our armchairs, much less be bothered to distinguish "railroad" from "railway" Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. The railway vs. railroad is more from the early days of railroading where English financiers provided a bit of the money or English ancestry people named the railroad. Even the mere custom of saying railway vs. railroad could have been the source of the naming. Eventually, the old names fell by the wayside and the new names tended to be railroad as this was the way Americans are talking about their railroads. -- Bob May Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. Works every time it is tried! > >>>> If you're going to say it's incorrect as used by US railways, > >>>> use an American dictionary. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sure it is... but if you're going to claim that a term is incorrect as used > by U.S. railways, then at least refer to the U.S. definition of the word. Did I say the term was _incorrect/wrong_ as used by US railways or did I say the word was _non-sensical_? Regards, Greg.P. > Did I say the term was _incorrect/wrong_ as used by US railways or did I say > the word was _non-sensical_? You wrote that the term was incorrect as used by US railways. news:409314D9.9E920FAB@ihug.co.nz > > Did I say the term was _incorrect/wrong_ as used by US railways or did I > say > > the word was _non-sensical_? > > You wrote that the term was incorrect as used by US railways. > news:409314D9.9E920FAB@ihug.co.nz Could we go with what I intended to write? > > > Did I say the term was _incorrect/wrong_ as used by US railways or did I > > say [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Could we go with what I intended to write? CAN WE GET BACK TO SLIP SWITCH TRACK OR LEAVE THIS GROUP? Jim Stewart >> Could we go with what I intended to write? > > CAN WE GET BACK TO SLIP SWITCH TRACK OR LEAVE THIS GROUP? Yeah -- like slip switches are the *only* thing that can be discussed on rec.models.railroad. >>> Could we go with what I intended to write? >> >> CAN WE GET BACK TO SLIP SWITCH TRACK OR LEAVE THIS GROUP? > >Yeah -- like slip switches are the *only* thing that can be discussed on >rec.models.railroad. We haven't had a "Split the Group" rant in a long time now, nor has any Haggis come up for a while. We're about due for some interesting OT stuff. Torii are a new OT that we haven't batted around before. While I am at it, has anyone come up with a good way to power an airbrush using oxygen? ...................F> Smartazz, GA. > While I am at it, has anyone come up with a good way > to power an airbrush using oxygen? > Smartazz, GA. The major problem with using Oxygen is that the pressure the oxygen is under. When released to use with an air brush makes the oxygen temperature drop and the paint then thickens up. I think that if someone could make a dual feed pressure regulator and use propane for the second gas mixture the two gasses would not cool down NotSureButGuessing >> While I am at it, has anyone come up with a good way >> to power an airbrush using oxygen? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >propane for the second gas mixture the two gasses would not cool down >NotSureButGuessing Propane would probably work OK, but have you thought about using acetelyne? Being derived from acetone it should have some solvent properties that would aid in reducing the tendency of the paint to thicken. Just a thought. Dear Froggy & Co., I didn't know we were celebrating Big John Day! Happy Big John Day. The train of RDC's will be leaving at 8:30. Barbeque will be served in the dining car. (Is there an RDC dining car?) Cordiallly yours, Gerard P. >Dear Froggy & Co., > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Cordiallly yours, >Gerard P. Big John is sorely missed. We will not see the likes of him again. > I didn't know we were celebrating Big John Day! Happy Big John > Day. The train of RDC's will be leaving at 8:30. Barbeque will be > served in the dining car. (Is there an RDC dining car?) Sadly, we are. "Big John" Dalton -- a regular contributor to rec.models.railroad -- passed away three years ago, on May 4, 2001. >>> While I am at it, has anyone come up with a good way >>> to power an airbrush using oxygen? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >reducing the tendency of the paint to thicken. >Just a thought. Gads, Where do you live? I just want to make sure I'm not downwind of the fallout! Jim >>>> While I am at it, has anyone come up with a good way >>>> to power an airbrush using oxygen? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Jim Fallout? What fallout? I wasn't suggesting using radioactive acetylene It's acetylene not acetelyne. I can spell fnie, I just can't tpye so hto. Sorry 'bout that. > >> While I am at it, has anyone come up with a good way > >> to power an airbrush using oxygen? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > reducing the tendency of the paint to thicken. > Just a thought. Hmmmm.. I thought Acetylene works better with Nitrous-Oxide gas ! That, combined with atomized paint should yeld a very happy combination. Just make sure to use a non-water based paint for best results. More flammable - the better ! And make sure to spray in an unventilated tightly closed space and hope for a spark. Darwin would be proud ! :-) Peteski Thanks for bringing up this subject. Something I was just thinking about. I had not considered the temperature/pressure drop issue. Not to mention the FLAMMABILITY issue. Yikes! I use nitrogen bottles as a source for a small, laboratory (single pass) sand blaster. Regulator reduced to about 40 psi. I was wondering if this nitrogen source might be also suitable for an airbrush, of course more reduced pressure. A 4-5 foot tall 1800 psi nitrogen bottle refill costs about $9. The regulator about $80. Probably last for a long time. I have experienced those problems with the little cans that get very cold after some use and introduce condensed water into the air stream and ruin your paint project. Thanks for your help RMR! Best Regards, Robert >> While I am at it, has anyone come up with a good way >> to power an airbrush using oxygen? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >propane for the second gas mixture the two gasses would not cool down >NotSureButGuessing > Thanks for bringing up this subject. Something I was just thinking > about. I had not considered the temperature/pressure drop issue. Not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > refill costs about $9. The regulator about $80. Probably last for a > long time. Been There, Done That, Works Great I have also used CO2 as a pressure source Howard R Garner Any relatively inert gas will work well. Nitrogen is probably the cheapest, and is used by many professional artists. With ANY of these, provide adequate ventilation, as they are asphyxiant gasses (they displace oxygen). Using them in confined spaces (like a room) invites disaster. In the long run, a compressor is the cheapest alternative, but all the inexpensive ones make considerable noise. Dan Mitchell ========== > > Thanks for bringing up this subject. Something I was just thinking > > about. I had not considered the temperature/pressure drop issue. Not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Howard R Garner >> Thanks for bringing up this subject. Something I was just >> thinking about. I had not considered the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Howard R Garner Be sure to chain any bottled gas cylinder to the wall or to a really stout workbench. Be sure to leave the top on until you have the cylinder chained or strapped to the wall. Knock the valve loose and you have a rocket on your hands. I saw the aftermath of one that went through three cinderblock walls and took off across a field. Also, don't forget, as another poster mentioned, that these gases displace oxygen and can make you dead pretty quickly in a confined space. Hi all, Be careful with nitrogen, the first hint you get there could be trouble is when you find yourself face down on the floor ! Bob. > > Thanks for bringing up this subject. Something I was just thinking > > about. I had not considered the temperature/pressure drop issue. Not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Howard R Garner > Hi all, > > Be careful with nitrogen, the first hint you get there could be trouble is > when you find yourself face down on the floor ! > > Bob. Nitrogen should be a very-very minor issue. Since it already makes up over 70% of the atmosphere, the usual amount from air-brushing should not increase the % to a leathal level. >> While I am at it, has anyone come up with a good way >> to power an airbrush using oxygen? > > The major problem with using Oxygen is that the pressure the oxygen is > under. When released to use with an air brush makes the oxygen temperature > drop and the paint then thickens up. Can't you simply heat the oxygen as it leaves the airbrush -- with something like with a cigarette lighter or a propane torch or something? That seems like it would quickly get the oxygen back up to ambient temperature, and solve all of your problems. : >> While I am at it, has anyone come up with a good way : >> to power an airbrush using oxygen? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : like it would quickly get the oxygen back up to ambient temperature, and : solve all of your problems. Permanently! Bob > >> While I am at it, has anyone come up with a good way > >> to power an airbrush using oxygen? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > like it would quickly get the oxygen back up to ambient temperature, and > solve all of your problems. I thought about doing something like this but ran into a couple of problems: 1. Holding the model being painted, the airbrush and the lighter required three hands and I only have two... 2. The flame from the lighter caused the paint to darken. I didn't want to search the web for a lighter shade of colour as I have found the perfect shade of black. > >> Could we go with what I intended to write? > > > > CAN WE GET BACK TO SLIP SWITCH TRACK OR LEAVE THIS GROUP? > > Yeah -- like slip switches are the *only* thing that can be discussed on > rec.models.railroad. IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED IN A THREAD WITH SAID TITLE. James Stewart > IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED IN A THREAD WITH SAID TITLE. Well, not really, and shouting won't make it so. SignatureThread Drift R Us >>>>Could we go with what I intended to write? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > James Stewart Okay, then a slip switch is a switch that is unsteady on its feet. > >>>>Could we go with what I intended to write? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > Okay, then a slip switch is a switch that is unsteady on its feet. I thought a slip switch was when you swapped your auntie's undies... SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > >>>>Could we go with what I intended to write? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > Okay, then a slip switch is a switch that is unsteady on its feet. You might be right - all mine have fallen down flat on the ground! > Okay, then a slip switch is a switch that is unsteady on its feet. Oh . . . a slide switch, eh? SignatureSteve Caple > Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (I must admit also to having a problem in reading about "gas > electrics" - what sort of gas? where are the big bags? etc) Greg, in the United States we use gasoline in our cars. The 'Gas electrics' used gasoline to run the generator for the traction motors. I guess you might call it a 'Petrol electric'. (S) > Regards, > Greg.P. SignaturePlease note; return email address has changed. It is now farosenbaum@sbcglobal.net. Emails to Earthlink will be ignored. The Gratiot Valley Railroad Club bi-annual train show and sale November 7, 2004, at the Macomb Community College Sports and Expo Center. Macomb County Michigan. Please visit our Web Site Click here: http://www.gvrr.org/ >> Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I guess you might call it a 'Petrol electric'. (S) No. They call them Tin Hares. Talk about having to be "in the know" ! Antipodean English is all about having to be "in the know"<G> Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >> Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Talk about having to be "in the know" ! > Antipodean English is all about having to be "in the know"<G> Actually, "Tin Hares", "Vulcans" and "Fiats" (later "grass-grubs"), but the time-tables called them "Railmotors" or "Railcars". Froggy@The wrote: >> Greg, in the United States we use gasoline in our cars. The 'Gas >> electrics' used gasoline to run the generator for the traction [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > No. They call them Tin Hares. Froggy, if you're referring to the 42 footers, they weren't "Petrol Electrics", they were "Petrol Mechanical", and later "Diesel Hydraulic". <VBG!> > Froggy@The wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Electrics", they were "Petrol Mechanical", and later "Diesel Hydraulic". > <VBG!> Mark the expert knows the 42 foot rail motors of the NSWGR, CPH's nick name is the Tin Hare. Unfortunately our resident expert has got it wrong again. NSW never had any diesel hydraulic rail motors. The Tin Hare was converted from petrol mechanical to diesel mechanical drive which had a hydraulic torque converter instead of a mechanical gear box. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates >> Froggy@The wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >from petrol mechanical to diesel mechanical drive which had a hydraulic >torque converter instead of a mechanical gear box. Uhhhhhhh, not that I would ever "take sides" in the Flynn/Newton feud, but Terry, isn't a system where a reciprocating engine drives a torque converter mechanical drive an (engine-type) / hydraulic. That is; in the case of a diesel powered shunting locomotive with a torque converter which in turn drives cardan shafts transmitting power to the bogies, do you not have a diesel/hydraulic locomotive? I don't know that I have ever known of a diesel/hydraulic railway locomotive such that the wheels were turned by hydraulic motors. For that matter I don't know of the cardan shafts being turned by hydraulic motors. To my way of thinking a diesel/mechanical would have a manually operated transmission in the manner of large highway tractors. At any rate it sounds to me like the Tin Hares were, in fact diesel/hydraulic after the upgrading Please elaborate on your terminology and the reasons for it. Froggy@The wrote: > Uhhhhhhh, not that I would ever "take sides" in the Flynn/Newton > feud, but Terry, isn't a system where a reciprocating engine drives a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > tractors. At any rate it sounds to me like the Tin Hares were, in > fact diesel/hydraulic after the upgrading The NSWGR and it's heirs and successors described the CPHs and their ilk as diesel-hydraulics, likewise the once numerous 73 class shunting locos, and the modern Xplorer and Endeavour cars. All of which employ a torque converter between the engine and the final drive. But as Flynn has been known to argue "that the termonolgy used in the 'official'documents is not the best or correct term", we can expect more of his sophistry in response to your question. Good luck. >Froggy@The wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >'official'documents is not the best or correct term", we can expect more >of his sophistry in response to your question. Good luck. Well since you are up and about, what is your say on the subject. It is a foregone conclusion that Australian and North American English are not always the same with respect to the intended meaning of some words. Froggy@The wrote: > Well since you are up and about, what is your say on the subject. It > is a foregone conclusion that Australian and North American English > are not always the same with respect to the intended meaning of some > words. Yes, in some cases that is obviously so. But I would say that the phrase "diesel/hydraulic" means the same thing in both countries - and common usage supports that interpretation. I note that Alco described their DH-643s as diesel-hydraulic, as did EMD with their GMDH-1s, and Plymouth their range of torque converter industrial locomotives. All these locos were of the engine-torque converter-final drive configuration. > Froggy@The wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > tractors. At any rate it sounds to me like the Tin Hares were, in > > fact diesel/hydraulic after the upgrading Except the Tin Hares had a mechanical clutch which could bypass the torque converter, making it all mechanical drive at high engine revs only. A technicality. It's is a bit of both. The rest of the rail motors do comply with the generaly used term diesel hydralic drive that is in common usage, I was seeing if Mark would bite. He has. He can't keep his word. > The NSWGR and it's heirs and successors described the CPHs and > their ilk as diesel-hydraulics, likewise the once numerous 73 class [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 'official'documents is not the best or correct term", we can expect more > of his sophistry in response to your question. Good luck. Another post repling to what I have said Mark. You don't keep your word for long. Why won't you give us details of your model railway? Why do you insist on using talking about your model railway offline. What's to hide? What some pen pusher describes as a 'diesel hydraulic refers to the hydraulic transmission and engine type. The reality is they all have a mechanical final drive. It does not correctly cover the Tin Hare expert. Exploders and Endeavours are never referred to as rail motors, locomotives are not rail motors either. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates >....I was seeing if Mark would bite. He has. He can't keep his word. You two really hate each other, don't you? I think you should both have a hot Vegemite sandwich and go to your rooms.<G> .................F> Shaking Head, GA. Froggy@The wrote: > You two really hate each other, don't you? Hate is not the word I'd use. I don't hate Flynn. I loathe and detest the ill-mannered arsehole. > I think you should both have a hot Vegemite sandwich and go to your > rooms.<G> I <do> hate Vegemite. > >....I was seeing if Mark would bite. He has. He can't keep his word. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > .................F> > Shaking Head, GA. It would appear that way Froggy, but if you listen to the two of them, Terry seems to alsways get the upper hand as Mark has been reduced to imature name calling several times, which only shows he has run out of ideas in the discussion. Terry seems the mature one while Mark seems to be less in control of himself. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > It would appear that way Froggy, but if you listen to the two of > them, Terry seems to alsways get the upper hand as Mark has been > reduced to imature name calling several times, which only shows he > has run out of ideas in the discussion. Terry seems the mature one > while Mark seems to be less in control of himself. You want an example of immature, moose rooter, you ought to see Flynn when he's a guest in someone else's workplace. > > It would appear that way Froggy, but if you listen to the two of > > them, Terry seems to alsways get the upper hand as Mark has been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You want an example of immature, moose rooter, you ought to see Flynn >when he's a guest in someone else's workplace. Although I do not actually know what an antipodean "Moose Rooter" is, I will have to say that it does have a very negative ring to it. Perhaps Mark will enlighten those of us who do not speak such a colourful dialect of English. I do hope it's not profane. And as for Will's comments. my only thought is that a two-man feud might be better off left as a two-man feud. KWIM? It's your funeral Will. I'm not takin' sides. We have an expression down here in Dixie about two tomcats in a sack.<G> Froggy@The wrote: > Although I do not actually know what an antipodean "Moose Rooter" is, > I will have to say that it does have a very negative ring to it. Yes, it's an insult. > Perhaps Mark will enlighten those of us who do not speak such a > colourful dialect of English. I do hope it's not profane. You'll be disappointed, then. > And as for Will's comments. my only thought is that a two-man feud > might be better off left as a two-man feud. My thought is that the moose rooter is going to make Usenet history by being the first person ever to willingly attempt to ingratiate himself with Flynn. I wonder how long the honeymoon will last... > > > It would appear that way Froggy, but if you listen to the two of > > > them, Terry seems to alsways get the upper hand as Mark has been [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > We have an expression down here in Dixie about two tomcats in a sack.<G> I just think it is hiralrious, these two guys. But I don't read Mark's messages anymore, there was no content so I killfiled him. And Terry seems to be doing quite well in the feud, he has reduced Mark to spouting gibberish and hence Mark has lost ALL credibility. I will move on now to my layout and if I happen to run across something I need assistance with I will ask. OR If I see a thread where I can help, I will offer my thoughts. Have fun and as they say "Keep On Tracking!" SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > I will move on now to my layout and if I happen to run across > something I need assistance with I will ask. OR If I see a thread > where I can help, I will offer my thoughts. Yes, if I ever need advice on how to lay 6 foot of cork road or produce a badly drawn trackplan, you'll be the first person I ask. > > I will move on now to my layout and if I happen to run across > > something I need assistance with I will ask. OR If I see a thread > > where I can help, I will offer my thoughts. > > Yes, if I ever need advice on how to lay 6 foot of cork road or produce > a badly drawn trackplan, you'll be the first person I ask. Tell us something about your HO layout. Have you got beyond 6 feet of cork bed. As you are so into detail I await a description of your prototype layout which is better than the Gorre and Daphetid. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > Tell us something about your HO layout. Have you got beyond 6 feet of > cork bed. As you are so into detail I await a description of your > prototype layout which is better than the Gorre and Daphetid. "Better than the Gorre & Daphetid"? What a change of heart. Can this be from the same man who wrote, "Don't try to peddle out of date US modelling practices down under, we have move (sic) on."???, referring to John Allen? > > Tell us something about your HO layout. Have you got beyond 6 feet of > > cork bed. As you are so into detail I await a description of your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > date US modelling practices down under, we have move (sic) on."???, > referring to John Allen? Another post from Mark who said he would not reply to my posts. A quote from aus.rail.models. Mark the expert who has never built an Australian prototype model railway thinks you can apply 1960's US layout design principles to an Australian Layout. It's a different subject you have selectively quoted from. We still await any detail about your HO layout expert. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > I just think it is hiralrious, these two guys. But I don't read > Mark's messages anymore, there was no content so I killfiled him. And > Terry seems to be doing quite well in the feud, he has reduced Mark > to spouting gibberish and hence Mark has lost ALL credibility. You're doing a great job of killfiling me then, eh moose rooter? > > It would appear that way Froggy, but if you listen to the two of > > them, Terry seems to alsways get the upper hand as Mark has been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You want an example of immature, moose rooter, you ought to see Flynn > when he's a guest in someone else's workplace. Marks off in fantasy land again. What is he going on about? Get back to reality Mark. This is not Aus.rail where there are equally immature individuals who think it's funny to insult people on the group. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > Marks off in fantasy land again. What is he going on about? Get back > to reality Mark. Get back to work, you bludger. > This is not Aus.rail where there are equally immature individuals who > think it's funny to insult people on the group. Which you are quite happy to participate in when it suits you, bludger. Do some work, you parasite. >> You want an example of immature, moose rooter, you ought to see >> Flynn when he's a guest in someone else's workplace. > Marks off in fantasy land again. What is he going on about? The day that you came to the Large Erecting Shop as an invited guest, and proceeded to behave like a complete and utter ill-mannered prick. THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING ON ABOUT! Or have you conveniently forgotten about that? >The day that you came to the Large Erecting Shop as an invited guest, >and proceeded to behave like a complete and utter ill-mannered prick. The day of this photo perhaps, he certainly hasn't got much of a smile. <http://www.angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html> Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. >> The day that you came to the Large Erecting Shop as an invited >> guest, and proceeded to behave like a complete and utter >> ill-mannered prick. > The day of this photo perhaps, he certainly hasn't got much of a > smile. <http://www.angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html> That's the day in question, Keith. But, as grumpy as he is in this photo, he still looks better than in the one I took of him. <G!> http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4422382&outx=430&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&nostamp=1 SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > >> The day that you came to the Large Erecting Shop as an invited > >> guest, and proceeded to behave like a complete and utter [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That's the day in question, Keith. But, as grumpy as he is in this > photo, he still looks better than in the one I took of him. <G!> http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4422382&outx=430&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&nostamp=1 wrote: > I think you should both have a hot Vegemite sandwich and go to your rooms.<G> I think they ARE a hot Vegemite sandwich, and don't want to think about what would go on in those rooms. SignatureSteve Caple >> I think you should both have a hot Vegemite sandwich and go to your >> rooms.<G> > > I think they ARE a hot Vegemite sandwich, and don't want to think > about what would go on in those rooms. LOL!!! :-) > Except the Tin Hares had a mechanical clutch which could bypass the > torque converter, making it all mechanical drive at high engine revs > only. A technicality. It's is a bit of both. The rest of the rail > motors do comply with the generaly used term diesel hydralic drive > that is in common usage, I was seeing if Mark would bite. He has. He > can't keep his word. Changed your name to Froggy now? For it was Froggy that I was replying to, arsehole. > Another post repling to what I have said Mark. What some pen pusher > describes as a 'diesel hydraulic refers to the hydraulic transmission > and engine type. The reality is they all have a mechanical final > drive. It does not correctly cover the Tin Hare expert. Exploders and > Endeavours are never referred to as rail motors Wrong. Come to work with me one night, arsehole, and read the signage on the whiteboard in the Service Managers office. Or spend a couple of hours studying all of the XESC in-house documentation.Note the number of times the term "railmotor" appears, arsehole. Xplorers and Endeavours are often referred to as railmotors by those who operate and maintain them. > > Except the Tin Hares had a mechanical clutch which could bypass the > > torque converter, making it all mechanical drive at high engine revs [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Changed your name to Froggy now? For it was Froggy that I was replying > to, arsehole. Stick you dummy back in Mark. Try answering one question about your HO layout expert story teller. > > Another post repling to what I have said Mark. What some pen pusher > > describes as a 'diesel hydraulic refers to the hydraulic transmission [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > times the term "railmotor" appears, arsehole. Xplorers and Endeavours > are often referred to as railmotors by those who operate and maintain them. So when official documents don't support your position you rely on the white board and the jargon used unofficially. Since when do maintance staff define the name of a passenger railway vehicle. It just shows poor adherence to correct terminology, then again if you are involved, no wonder our rail system has such a poor maintance record these days. Still pushing the broom? SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > So when official documents don't support your position you rely on the white > board and the jargon used unofficially. The in-house documentation at XESC <is> official, fuckwit. Or do you imagine that the fitters and TAs amuse themselves by producing bootleg paperwork? > > So when official documents don't support your position you rely on the white > > board and the jargon used unofficially. > > The in-house documentation at XESC <is> official, fuckwit. Or do you > imagine that the fitters and TAs amuse themselves by producing bootleg > paperwork? Clearly then your official documents contain unofficial names for rail cars. I will give you a tip Mark. NSW railmotors have the words ' RAILMOTOR' in 6" high letters on their body. They also had spoked wheels. The rail cars used today do not have the words railmotor on them, because they are officially termed rail cars. It is to be expected you are unable to correctly fill out paperwork. Fitters and TA's do not decide what is an official term. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > Clearly then your official documents contain unofficial names for > rail cars. Clearly then, the official documents support my position. > I will give you a tip Mark. NSW railmotors have the words ' > RAILMOTOR' in 6" high letters on their body. They also had spoked > wheels. Not in their later years they didn't. Better get out and have a look at the survivors. Another lie. > The rail cars used today do not have the words railmotor on them, > because they are officially termed rail cars. It is to be expected > you are unable to correctly fill out paperwork. HAH! Well put, Mr Literacy! > Fitters and TA's do not decide what is an official term. Indeed, we do not. The railway hierarchy decide that, and they use the terms "railmotor" and "railcar" interchangeably. > > Clearly then your official documents contain unofficial names for > > rail cars. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Indeed, we do not. The railway hierarchy decide that, and they use the > terms "railmotor" and "railcar" interchangeably. It's clear some pen pushers are still using the out of date steam era term for your section. It ain't the official name of what is being repaired. Consider it to be an insult, rail motors are an out of date form of transport. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > So when official documents don't support your position you rely on > the white board and the jargon used unofficially. Since when do > maintance staff define the name of a passenger railway vehicle. The maintenance staff follow the example set by the owners/operators, who frequently refer to the Xplorer and Endeavour cars as railmotors. The documents produced by PFM and CountryLink are about as "official" as you can get, I would think. > just shows poor adherence to correct terminology, then again if you > are involved, no wonder our rail system has such a poor maintance > record these days. Still pushing the broom? Note the glaring inconsistency in this question. If I was pushing a broom, then I'd hardly have any effect at all on the maintenance record, now would I? So take the time to look at the following: http://www.railpage.com.au/modules/gallery/albums/album53/docket.jpg PFM car cleaners - classified as EO3s - do a very good job in far from ideal circumstances. So your constant attempts to nark me by referring to me as a "broom pusher" are wasted. Our EO3s are hard-working and dedicated, and would be an asset in any organisation. I gratefully accept the compliment. If you really wanted to hurt my feelings, you would refer to me as a "UNSW technical officer". > > So when official documents don't support your position you rely on > > the white board and the jargon used unofficially. Since when do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The documents produced by PFM and CountryLink are about as "official" as > you can get, I would think. Your in good company, a bunch of pen pushers who don't know what they are working on. Exploders are officially rail cars. Rail motor is a steam era term, which went out of official use as a rail vehicle name a along time ago. Public service tradition appears to continue in State Rail. Out dated terminology for out dated thinking. Then again Country Link is nothing but a second rate transport service that exists due to political pork barrelling. > > just shows poor adherence to correct terminology, then again if you > > are involved, no wonder our rail system has such a poor maintance [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.railpage.com.au/modules/gallery/albums/album53/docket.jpg This is most stupid thing you have done to date, placing your personal details on the web such as staff No. The less important things such as address can easily be looked up. You must have told some real whoppers to become an acting shift supervisor. What is the qualification of those below you? I am glad I am not in your shoes when every one finds out how much you really know. > PFM car cleaners - classified as EO3s - do a very good job in far from > ideal circumstances. So your constant attempts to nark me by referring [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you really wanted to hurt my feelings, you would refer to me as a > "UNSW technical officer". You need real qualifications to be a technical officer. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > This is most stupid thing you have done to date... No, the most stupid thing I have done to date is waste time and effort trading insults with a troglodyte like you. Like many before me, I concede defeat. > Mark the expert knows the 42 foot rail motors of the NSWGR, CPH's > nick name is the Tin Hare. If you have anything to say, do so via e-mail, or in person. I'm not wasting any more time trading slurs and insults with you on any newsgroup. If you have anything to say, do so via e-mail, or in person. I'm not wasting any more time trading slurs and insults with you on any newsgroup. > > > > Mark the expert knows the 42 foot rail motors of the NSWGR, CPH's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm not wasting any more time trading slurs and insults with you on any > newsgroup. Terry, better do what Mark insists, he is tired of you humiliating him in public. He wants you to take it private. I know you have nothing to hide, But Mark obviously does not want to be shown up in public. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > Terry, better do what Mark insists, he is tired of you humiliating > him in public. I am tired of wasting time responding to his inane drivel. The humiliation is all his. > He wants you to take it private. I know you have nothing to hide, Terry has quite a lot to hide, as it happens. Ask him why his employer closely monitors his internet usage these days. > But Mark obviously does not want to be shown up in public. Mark obviously doesn't want to participate any more in Terry's self-aggrandizing bullshit. If he was genuinely interested in discussing information or ideas he could quite happily do so via e-mail or telephone, as do many others. As for seeing my layouts, he lives quite close to me, and has an open invitation to visit me at any time he cares to. End of story. Mark, I would love to see your layout. Anyone who thinks John Allen's work was not that good and intimated that he can do better. I would love to see the layout. I live in Canada, 200 miles north of Toronto. Where abouts do you live? SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > Mark, I would love to see your layout. > Anyone who thinks John Allen's work was not that good and intimated that he > can do better. I would love to see the layout. I live in Canada, 200 miles > north of Toronto. > Where abouts do you live? BTW, my coreect email address can be found on my webpage. > Mark, I would love to see your layout. > Anyone who thinks John Allen's work was not that good and intimated > that he can do better. Do you seriously maintain that I alone, of all the rail modellers in the world, am the only one who reckons the G&D is overrated? Of course I can do better. Anyone can, even you, by simply observing reality and reproducing what they observe in miniature. Which Allen manifestly DID NOT DO. Allen's layout was a caricature, a cartoon in 3-D, the embodiment of his fantasy world, it was many things, but it was not a great model railroad. > I would love to see the layout. I live in Canada, 200 miles north of > Toronto. Where abouts do you live? Sydney, Australia. Pack your bags if you wish. > > I would love to see the layout. I live in Canada, 200 miles north of > > Toronto. Where abouts do you live? > > Sydney, Australia. Pack your bags if you wish. Post or send your address, someone my wife works with expects to be in Sydney for about a month, sometime in August or September, and will no doubt have a weekend available to stop by. They thoroughly enjoyed our, just getting started, track on foam layout. They'll undoubtedly be extremely impressed by your layout. Paul SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX > > > I would love to see the layout. I live in Canada, 200 miles north of > > > Toronto. Where abouts do you live? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > just getting started, track on foam layout. They'll undoubtedly be > extremely impressed by your layout. Paul, it is NOT a good idea to post your adress on an open forum like this. As to emails, with the assortment of email search bots on usenet, I would suggest that addresses be emailed to the recipient. and that email address be written in a form that can be understood, but not simply cut and pasted. Otherwise you open up your email to all sorts of SPAM. for instance, my email can be retrieved from my homepage. or I would say it is bill (underscore) annand (at) muskokacomutes (dot) com The above can be understood by any reader, but a searchbot will overlook it as it is not in correct email format. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm >> > > I would love to see the layout. I live in Canada, 200 miles north of >> > > Toronto. Where abouts do you live? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Paul, it is NOT a good idea to post your adress on an open forum > like this. >> ... or send ... > As to emails, with the assortment of email search bots on usenet, > I would suggest that addresses be emailed to the recipient. and > that email address be written in a form that can be understood, > but not simply cut and pasted. As in: newhouse at rockhead dot com which you can find in the reply-to of the header??? The bots all send to "rockhead.com@" which is blocked. I presumed that Mark was bright enough to NOT do something as stupid as you are assuming. Paul SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX > >> > > I would love to see the layout. I live in Canada, 200 miles north of > >> > > Toronto. Where abouts do you live? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I presumed that Mark was bright enough to NOT do something as stupid > as you are assuming. I never presume anything when it comes to usenet. Some users only know how to get here, read and post. You would be surpised at some of the things people have done. A while ago, one fellow was in the middle of a flame war with three other people and he posted his phone number and wanted the others to phone him. So I never presume anything and always feel it is better to warn someone and have them say "I know that". Than it is to have someone do something dumb and pay for it. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > So I never presume anything and always feel it is better to warn someone and > have them say "I know that". Than it is to have someone do something dumb > and pay for it. Ok! *8-D Paul SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX > bill (underscore) annand (at) muskokacomutes (dot) com > > The above can be understood by any reader, but a searchbot will overlook it > as it is not in correct email format. And it doesn't take much of a regexp or pcre to figure it out either. Paul SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX > > Mark, I would love to see your layout. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Allen's layout was a caricature, a cartoon in 3-D, the embodiment of his > fantasy world, it was many things, but it was not a great model railroad. You may well be thinking of a "model railway" as an inanimate object. John Allen took his model into the dimension of operation as well as just a visual representation of a railway. Those of us who have built more than one model railway have almost certainly built one that failed to achieve what we set out for it to be in one sense or another. Allen's layouts were presented to us as fulfilling the original requirements and in doing so encouraged many of us to dream bigger dreams and to build better layouts. Allen also told us why previous layouts didn't give the satisfaction they might have and thereby allowed us to avoid some of the pitfalls he discovered. If John Allen were alive today, I'm sure he would be taking full advantage of the vastly better models that are available over the counter and the Gorre and Daphetid would have gone through another half dozen metamorphoses. Regards, Greg.P. > You may well be thinking of a "model railway" as an inanimate object. No, I am not thinking anything of the sort. I am thinking of a model railway as being a representation of reality in miniature. I am thinking that Allen's layout was an animate fantasy object. Why is that such a contentious statement? Am I the only person to see past the hype? > John Allen took his model into the dimension of operation as well as > just a visual representation of a railway. It was a visual representation of a fantasy railway. Operationally, it was no more realistic. An article about operations on the G&D that appeared in an early 60s issue of MR confirms that. > > You may well be thinking of a "model railway" as an inanimate object. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Operationally, it was no more realistic. An article about operations on > the G&D that appeared in an early 60s issue of MR confirms that. Can any "model railway" be anything more than a fantasy? The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section of railway track with suitable trains passing a point at representative moments. If one's model did accurately portray a section of actual railway at an instant in history it would take a vast amount of space and be operationally as boring as hell. I suggest that any model railway we construct is in fact a fantasy to a large degree. Mine certainly is, in spite of having a defined prototype location, time period and all rolling stock present being correct to that prototype. Regards, Greg.P. > Can any "model railway" be anything more than a fantasy? Yes. You're just being deliberately obtuse in your interpretation of the word "fantasy". Allen's railroad was completely implausible, and like no real railway that ever was. A fantasy, in other words. > The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section of > railway track with suitable trains passing a point at representative > moments. Nonsense. You're confusing your inability to imagine how it may be done with the idea that it can't be done. And it can be, and has been done many, many times. > If one's model did accurately portray a section of actual railway at > an instant in history it would take a vast amount of space More nonsense. The size of the model would be entirely dependent on the prototype, a smallish location would give a smallish model. > and be operationally as boring as hell. An entirely subjective opinion, again it would depend on the prototype, and the preferred operation style of the builder. > I suggest that any model railway we construct is in fact a fantasy to > a large degree. Fantasy, as in fantastic, or fantasy as in a product of one's imagination? > > > > Can any "model railway" be anything more than a fantasy? > > Yes. You're just being deliberately obtuse in your interpretation of the > word "fantasy". Allen's railroad was completely implausible, and like no > real railway that ever was. A fantasy, in other words. It looked like a few bits of New Zealand. > > The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section of > > railway track with suitable trains passing a point at representative [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with the idea that it can't be done. And it can be, and has been done > many, many times. I think you're confusing your imagination with some ability you haven't got. > > If one's model did accurately portray a section of actual railway at > > an instant in history it would take a vast amount of space > > More nonsense. The size of the model would be entirely dependent on the > prototype, a smallish location would give a smallish model. Any location is going to relate to the length of the train being run and almost any railway is going to be in the business of moving people or goods considerable distances. A small station on a main line is going to be much the same length as a major station on the same line. > > and be operationally as boring as hell. > > An entirely subjective opinion, again it would depend on the prototype, > and the preferred operation style of the builder. Sure, but the prototype of my layout runs 6 trains per day (3 out and back) > > I suggest that any model railway we construct is in fact a fantasy to > > a large degree. > > Fantasy, as in fantastic, or fantasy as in a product of one's imagination? That would depend upon one's imaginative abilities. >>> Can any "model railway" be anything more than a fantasy? >> >> Yes. You're just being deliberately obtuse in your interpretation >> of the word "fantasy". Allen's railroad was completely implausible, >> and like no real railway that ever was. A fantasy, in other words. > It looked like a few bits of New Zealand. Really? Which bits of New Zealand feature five separate levels of track strung along the sides of a near vertical-sided chasm??? The bits of New Zealand which were designed and built by Disney??? In truth, it looks nothing like any bits of anywhere. >>> The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section >>> of railway track with suitable trains passing a point at >>> representative moments. >> Nonsense. You're confusing your inability to imagine how it may be >> done with the idea that it can't be done. And it can be, and has >> been done many, many times. > > I think you're confusing your imagination with some ability you > haven't got. Eh? Could you repeat this sentence in English, please? >>> If one's model did accurately portray a section of actual railway >>> at an instant in history it would take a vast amount of space >> More nonsense. The size of the model would be entirely dependent on >> the prototype, a smallish location would give a smallish model. > Any location is going to relate to the length of the train being run > and almost any railway is going to be in the business of moving > people or goods considerable distances. Still more nonsense. With the stroke of a keyboard you dismiss the many railways that only move people or goods short distances, or run short trains. You also ignore the many instances where, for example, a crossing loop is considerably shorter than the longest trains that use it. Or there is a car-length halt on a main line. I would have thought you'd be less parochial, and more observant than that. > A small station on a main line is going to be much the same length as > a major station on the same line. Complete and utter nonsense. I can walk out my front door and stand on a station that is just long enough to accomodate an eight-car suburban EMU. There are no loops or sidings, just two platforms and plain track. Two stations away in the up direction is a branch junction station, which is at least twice as long as my local station. Two stations away in the down direction is a station that is the terminus for suburban electric services on our line. It is twice as long again. Your statement makes no sense, unless you narrow your definition to mean only the platforms, and even these vary in length. >>> and be operationally as boring as hell. >> An entirely subjective opinion, again it would depend on the >> prototype, and the preferred operation style of the builder. > Sure, but the prototype of my layout runs 6 trains per day (3 out and > back) Yes, what is your point? >>> I suggest that any model railway we construct is in fact a >>> fantasy to a large degree. >> Fantasy, as in fantastic, or fantasy as in a product of one's >> imagination? > That would depend upon one's imaginative abilities. In other words, you have no sensible answer. Why don't we simply agree to disagree on this subject? Obviously, the G&D appeals to you. That's great, terrific, more power to your elbow. > >>> Can any "model railway" be anything more than a fantasy? > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Zealand which were designed and built by Disney??? In truth, it looks > nothing like any bits of anywhere. I could find you three levels and quite a few spots where tracks run along the sides of near vertical chasms. Disney probably got a lot of his ideas from NZ terrain. cf Lord of the Rings. > >>> The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section > >>> of railway track with suitable trains passing a point at [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Eh? Could you repeat this sentence in English, please? Just read it more slowly and carefully, it makes full sense. > >>> If one's model did accurately portray a section of actual railway > >>> at an instant in history it would take a vast amount of space [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > railways that only move people or goods short distances, or run short > trains. Can you give examples of grade one railways that have routes of under one mile? Can you give examples of railways that _only_ run short trains? > You also ignore the many instances where, for example, a > crossing loop is considerably shorter than the longest trains that use > it. You used "trains" rather than "train" - care to explain how two trains longer than the crossing loop can pass? (I know the answer but your model layout is going to be tied up for a long period!) > Or there is a car-length halt on a main line. I would have thought > you'd be less parochial, and more observant than that. A car length halt isn't going to make an exciting operating layout! > > A small station on a main line is going to be much the same length as > > a major station on the same line. > > Complete and utter nonsense. I can walk out my front door and stand on a > station that is just long enough to accomodate an eight-car suburban > EMU. There are no loops or sidings, just two platforms and plain track. That's a halt, not a station. > Two stations away in the up direction is a branch junction station, > which is at least twice as long as my local station. Two stations away > in the down direction is a station that is the terminus for suburban > electric services on our line. It is twice as long again. Your statement > makes no sense, unless you narrow your definition to mean only the > platforms, and even these vary in length. Try narrowing my definition to the lengths of tracks between throat turnouts. > >>> and be operationally as boring as hell. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes, what is your point? Should I limit my operating sessions to 5 minutes each at 7am, 12:30pm and 6pm - boring! > >>> I suggest that any model railway we construct is in fact a > >>> fantasy to a large degree. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In other words, you have no sensible answer. John Allen had more imagination than I do and I probably top several other people in that category. Where do _you_ draw the line between "fantastic" and "a product of one's imagination". For example, the slopes of the gorge on my model are steepened by about 33%-50% over the prototype but they are about 10% of the height, the clearances and the road are narrowed. The result is recognisable as a model of the prototype. > Why don't we simply agree to disagree on this subject? Obviously, the > G&D appeals to you. That's great, terrific, more power to your elbow. OK, we disagree! :-) > > I could find you three levels and quite a few spots where tracks run along > the sides of near vertical chasms. Disney probably got a lot of his ideas > from NZ terrain. cf Lord of the Rings. Bullshit. I've seen enough of NZ to know there's nothing remotely like the terrain that Allen modelled there. And as for LOTR, how much of what you see ISN'T special effects? (For that matter, how much of what you see is even remotely watchable?) >> >>> The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section >> >>> of railway track with suitable trains passing a point at [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Just read it more slowly and carefully, it makes full sense. Nah. It doesn't. >> >>> If one's model did accurately portray a section of actual railway >> >>> at an instant in history it would take a vast amount of space [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Can you give examples of grade one railways that have routes of under one > mile? A grade one railway is? > Can you give examples of railways that _only_ run short trains? You're joking, aren't you? Any suburban commuter operation, for a start. >>You also ignore the many instances where, for example, a >>crossing loop is considerably shorter than the longest trains that use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than the crossing loop can pass? (I know the answer but your model layout is > going to be tied up for a long period!) Me too. But I don't care how long it takes. That's the kind of operation I like. And the kind of operation which is prototypical, particular if the crossing loops locally have not been lenghtened to handle the traffic. >>Or there is a car-length halt on a main line. I would have thought >>you'd be less parochial, and more observant than that. >> > A car length halt isn't going to make an exciting operating layout! Well, that comes down to your subjective opinion. I have no idea what you personally reagrd as exciting. >> > A small station on a main line is going to be much the same length as >> > a major station on the same line. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's a halt, not a station. No, it's a station. It and a few hundred others hereabouts all have the same characteristics, and nobody for a split second considers them to be halts. >>Two stations away in the up direction is a branch junction station, >>which is at least twice as long as my local station. Two stations away [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Try narrowing my definition to the lengths of tracks between throat > turnouts. Makes no difference. The distance between turnouts at the throat will vary widely as well. As you are well aware. >> >>> and be operationally as boring as hell. >> >> An entirely subjective opinion, again it would depend on the >> >> prototype, and the preferred operation style of the builder. >> > Sure, but the prototype of my layout runs 6 trains per day (3 out and >> > back) >>Yes, what is your point? >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > clearances and the road are narrowed. The result is recognisable as a model > of the prototype. >>Why don't we simply agree to disagree on this subject? Obviously, the >>G&D appeals to you. That's great, terrific, more power to your elbow. > OK, we disagree! :-) > > I could find you three levels and quite a few spots where tracks run along > > the sides of near vertical chasms. Disney probably got a lot of his ideas > > from NZ terrain. cf Lord of the Rings. > > Bullshit. I've seen enough of NZ to know there's nothing remotely like > the terrain that Allen modelled there. Raurimu spiral. (North Island main Trunk) Otira Gorge. (SI West Coast line) Manawatu Gorge. (NI) > And as for LOTR, how much of what > you see ISN'T special effects? In LOTR the special effects were the additions of habitation to existing scenery. > (For that matter, how much of what you > see is even remotely watchable?) Ewww- sour grapes! > >> >>> The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section > >> >>> of railway track with suitable trains passing a point at [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Nah. It doesn't. Hmmm, we found the limitations of your cognitive abilities so soon and so easily! > >> >>> If one's model did accurately portray a section of actual railway > >> >>> at an instant in history it would take a vast amount of space [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > A grade one railway is? Sorry, I thought that was a normal US term - main line. > > Can you give examples of railways that _only_ run short trains? > > You're joking, aren't you? Any suburban commuter operation, for a start. You can find a suburban commuter operation of the order of length of the average model railway scaled up??? Why would they bother to build it, most people could walk that far to work. > >>You also ignore the many instances where, for example, a > >>crossing loop is considerably shorter than the longest trains that use [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Me too. But I don't care how long it takes. That's the kind of operation > I like. Yeah, and you probably spent many happy hours watching your grandmother crochet doilies for the sideboard. ;-) If you block the main line with two trains for half an hour then nothing else can run, which gets very boring for the rest of the operators. > And the kind of operation which is prototypical, particular if > the crossing loops locally have not been lenghtened to handle the traffic. Depends what you're modelling - it's pretty certain you're not modelling that ultra-short suburban commuter line. > >>Or there is a car-length halt on a main line. I would have thought > >>you'd be less parochial, and more observant than that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, that comes down to your subjective opinion. I have no idea what > you personally reagrd as exciting. Moving your passenger train forward two coach lengths at a time so everyone on board gets a turn at the platform doesn't do it! > >> > A small station on a main line is going to be much the same length as > >> > a major station on the same line. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Makes no difference. The distance between turnouts at the throat will > vary widely as well. As you are well aware. Of course! > >> >>> and be operationally as boring as hell. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > > OK, we disagree! :-) >> Bullshit. I've seen enough of NZ to know there's nothing remotely >> like the terrain that Allen modelled there. > Raurimu spiral. (North Island main Trunk) No. > Otira Gorge. (SI West Coast line) No. > Manawatu Gorge. (NI) No. Nice try, but none of them fit the bill. Maybe the "Staircase" on the SI Midland line. Maybe. >> And as for LOTR, how much of what you see ISN'T special effects? > In LOTR the special effects were the additions of habitation to > existing scenery. Hmm. I'll have to take your word for that... >> (For that matter, how much of what you see is even remotely >> watchable?) > Ewww- sour grapes! Another comment that makes no sense. How does my not enjoying the film constitute sour grapes? > >> Bullshit. I've seen enough of NZ to know there's nothing remotely > >> like the terrain that Allen modelled there. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Nice try, but none of them fit the bill. Maybe the "Staircase" on the SI > Midland line. Maybe. What do you want, the prototype John Allen actually modelled??? > >> And as for LOTR, how much of what you see ISN'T special effects? > > > In LOTR the special effects were the additions of habitation to > > existing scenery. > > Hmm. I'll have to take your word for that... You had better - I live here within a few miles of several of the locations and have been to a number of the others at different times. The closest to "special effects" altering the landscape other than the addition of "habitations" was the linking of widely separated locations in separate scenes as though they were withing walking distance of each other. > >> (For that matter, how much of what you see is even remotely > >> watchable?) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Another comment that makes no sense. How does my not enjoying the film > constitute sour grapes? Your comment suggested that the movies were not watchable, not that you personally didn't find it/them watchable. Regards, Greg.P. > Your comment suggested that the movies were not watchable, not that > you personally didn't find it/them watchable. I didn't find the movies watchable. Where do the sour grapes come in? > > Your comment suggested that the movies were not watchable, not that > > you personally didn't find it/them watchable. > > I didn't find the movies watchable. Then you should have said that in the first place. > Where do the sour grapes come in? Your mouth? > > >> Bullshit. I've seen enough of NZ to know there's nothing remotely > > >> like the terrain that Allen modelled there. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > No. It's one good example of many from around the world which is similar in style of Allen's scenery work. There are even locations in Australia which you can see railways built on cliff's, similarities which are comparable with some of Allens excellent work. Like Greg I've been to the above location. Newton as usual will tell any lie to push his argument. > > > Manawatu Gorge. (NI) > > > > No. > > Nice try, but none of them fit the bill. Maybe the "Staircase" on the SI > > Midland line. Maybe. > > What do you want, the prototype John Allen actually modelled??? > Regards, > Greg.P. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > > > > Can any "model railway" be anything more than a fantasy? > > Yes. You're just being deliberately obtuse in your interpretation of the > word "fantasy". Allen's railroad was completely implausible, and like no > real railway that ever was. A fantasy, in other words. It was more plausible than anything Mark Newton the expert layout builder has to show. > > The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section of > > railway track with suitable trains passing a point at representative [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with the idea that it can't be done. And it can be, and has been done > many, many times. Not by Mark Newton. > > If one's model did accurately portray a section of actual railway at > > an instant in history it would take a vast amount of space > > More nonsense. The size of the model would be entirely dependent on the > prototype, a smallish location would give a smallish model. Mark the expert layout designer needs to consider selective compression. Without selective compression most prototypes could never be modelled. Of course Mark's layout is not entirely dependent on his prototype, if he has one. If it was he has the largest HO model railway in Australia. > > and be operationally as boring as hell. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Fantasy, as in fantastic, or fantasy as in a product of one's imagination? SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > > > You may well be thinking of a "model railway" as an inanimate object. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > prototype location, time period and all rolling stock present being correct > to that prototype. I would have to agree with you Greg, one fellow up here wanted to model the Orangeville Yard in HO, it took 3'x25'. Orangeville is a small town north east of Toronto, it was the yard for the Toronto, Grey & Bruce Railway. Modelling the yard in Toronto would take about 4-5 times that area. I have selectively compressed the Orangeville yard into a 24"x60" area in N Scale. ALL model railways are "fantasy", they are the creators artistic representation of their interests. Some like point to point operations, some like merely switching in a yard, some such as myself , like the look of a single mainline coursing through beautiful landscape. My CVR will feature a single mainline ranging in height from 1" to 6" above the river that it passes over/near 9 times. It will compress 17 miles of track into about 34' of mainline. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > > > > You may well be thinking of a "model railway" as an inanimate object. > > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > the river that it passes over/near 9 times. It will compress 17 miles of > track into about 34' of mainline. 17m x 5280' = 89760' / 160 = 561' 34' / 561' = 1 : 16.5 of the scale length. While not wanting to demean your modelling, that's a pretty savage compression! I've managed to represent 25 miles of mainline in 12' (plus the hidden bits) in HO - reality just doesn't come into the equation in my case. > 17m x 5280' = 89760' / 160 = 561' > 34' / 561' = 1 : 16.5 of the scale length. > While not wanting to demean your modelling, that's a pretty savage compression! > I've managed to represent 25 miles of mainline in 12' (plus the hidden bits) in > HO - reality just doesn't come into the equation in my case. The track plan is on my website, I know it is a rough track plan, my skills do not lie in computer graphics, but in model building. You have stated my point exactly. My layout is a "fantasy" representation of a railline that was around over 100 years ago. I admit it is fantasy and have no problems with it. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > > 17m x 5280' = 89760' / 160 = 561' > > 34' / 561' = 1 : 16.5 of the scale length. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > have no problems with it. > -- I have a problem with my own representation of the prototype - not enough space! > The track plan is on my website, I know it is a rough track plan, my > skills do not lie in computer graphics, but in model building. What models? More like laying 6 foot of cork roadbed. And moose rooting. > > The track plan is on my website, I know it is a rough track plan, my > > skills do not lie in computer graphics, but in model building. > > What models? More like laying 6 foot of cork roadbed. And moose rooting. He still has more to show than our model detail and accuracy expert, Mark Newton. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > > > The track plan is on my website, I know it is a rough track plan, my > > > skills do not lie in computer graphics, but in model building. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > He still has more to show than our model detail and accuracy expert, Mark > Newton. Terry, Marky will have to change his whine after this weekend. I just picked up a box of N Scale cork, 25 whole pieces. So maybe by tomorrow night I can double my roadbed length. Who knows how far I will get by Sunday night, LOL However, even at 6', that is still 6' more than Marky has. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm All one has to do is simple math to realize that ALL model railways are fantasy. Take HO: 1 mile would need 60.5' of HO track N Scale: 1 mile requires 33' of track. "Real" railroads do not loop back on themselves, therefore every model RR layout that is continuous running is a "fantasy". Point to point layouts would need to be run in a straight line to be realistic, so any that run around a room would be a "fantasy" representation of a real railroad. I have seen a couple of museum layouts which accurately represented the yard area of the town that modelled it. all of these layouts were static displays and not working layouts. Face facts... 1. model railways are "fantasy". 2. model trains are toys. I know this and am at ease with it. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > All one has to do is simple math to realize that ALL model railways are > fantasy. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 1. model railways are "fantasy". > 2. model trains are toys. HEY! My trains are _not_ toys, and anyway I enjoy playing with them. ~8^P > I know this and am at ease with it. > -- > Will > N Scale - Credit Valley Railway > www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > "Real" railroads do not loop back on themselves, therefore every > model RR layout that is continuous running is a "fantasy". Wrong. There are real railways that do just that. That's the problem with being insular and parochial. You don't know much about anything outside your own little corner of the world, so you assume that what applies in Moosecooker applies universally. It doesn't. > Point to point layouts would need to be run in a straight line to be > realistic, so any that run around a room would be a "fantasy" > representation of a real railroad. Why is that a prerequisite for realism? Are you now claiming that real railroads only run in a straight line? I'd have sworn there was some place in Canadia(TM) where the railway loops back over itself - between Field and Lake Louise, no? Obviously the builders of the CPR didn't consult you beforehand. > > "Real" railroads do not loop back on themselves, therefore every > > model RR layout that is continuous running is a "fantasy". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > outside your own little corner of the world, so you assume that what > applies in Moosecooker applies universally. It doesn't. You know, at first I thought this was just a personal pissing match between you and Terry Flynn, I had some sympathy for your position. Juvenile insults like the above make that evaporate rapidly. > > Point to point layouts would need to be run in a straight line to be > > realistic, so any that run around a room would be a "fantasy" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Field and Lake Louise, no? Obviously the builders of the CPR didn't > consult you beforehand. If you mean spiral tunnels and similar, then read what he wrote again: he explictly talks about "continuous running". Not many railroads loop their east end back to join their west. Of course, "there's a prototype for everything" as they say. You can probably find some road that does exactly that, just as you can find short-short lines with track mileage in the low single digits, that could actually be modelled in no-compression, no-compromise entirety in a small scale and a large basement. But the roads that most people model don't have those convenient features, so the best we can do is an abstraction (IOW, a "fantasy") that preserves the essential concepts. -- Kizhé >>> "Real" railroads do not loop back on themselves, therefore every >>> model RR layout that is continuous running is a "fantasy". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You know, at first I thought this was just a personal pissing match > between you and Terry Flynn, So why buy into it? > I had some sympathy for your position. Juvenile insults like the > above make that evaporate rapidly. (Juvenile??? What is it with posters to this newsgroup? Is that the default term of opprobium? FWIW, I've just celebrated my 44th birthday - I'm a little long in the tooth to be classed as juvenile.) Blanket statements such as the one above, particularly when they are flatly wrong, make my patience evaporate just as rapidly. >>> Point to point layouts would need to be run in a straight line to >>> be realistic, so any that run around a room would be a "fantasy" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you mean spiral tunnels and similar, then read what he wrote > again: he explictly talks about "continuous running". His ill-informed comment about continous running appears to be separate from his nonsensical comments about point to point lines. Either way, the road from Field to Lake Louise <is> point to point, and gets there by looping over itself. A reasonably accurate model of that line <would> run around the walls of a room - no amount of sophistry or semantic wrangling will alter that. > Not many railroads loop their east end back to join their west. Of > course, "there's a prototype for everything" as they say. You can > probably find some road that does exactly that, Yes, I can. I travel on one such line daily. And it's not the only line here that forms a loop. It's by no means as uncommon as you believe it to be. But I'm guessing that you're posting from the USA, and as such you may be unaware of what takes place in the rest of the world. > just as you can find short-short lines with track mileage in the low > single digits, that could actually be modelled in no-compression, > no-compromise entirety in a small scale and a large basement. Which many people do. And in doing so they invalidate the various claims made here that "it can't be done". > But the roads that most people model don't have those convenient > features, so the best we can do is an abstraction (IOW, a "fantasy") > that preserves the essential concepts Again, a statement based on parochial ignorance. There are a many, many folks throughout the world who do just that - model short-short lines with these "convenient" features. When you say "most", you are ignoring large numbers of modellers whom you are blissfully unaware of. You don't know what they're up to, so you can't unequivocally state what they can and can't achieve. > >>> "Real" railroads do not loop back on themselves, therefore every > >>> model RR layout that is continuous running is a "fantasy". [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > it to be. But I'm guessing that you're posting from the USA, and as such > you may be unaware of what takes place in the rest of the world. Canada, actually; as is Will. > > just as you can find short-short lines with track mileage in the low > > single digits, that could actually be modelled in no-compression, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > know what they're up to, so you can't unequivocally state what they can > and can't achieve. Bah, before you lecture people on "parochial ignorance", learn to read what they actually write. I never said it *couldn't* be done, for particular prototypes (in fact I said the exact opposite). But it also manifestly *can't* be done for many other themes -- ones chosen by many modellers. How many modellers are doing "no-compromise" layouts vs. how many are compressing and/or looping back and omitting/combining towns and so on? I doubt anyone has reliable statistics, but I'd bet the second group is larger. -- Kizhé > >>> "Real" railroads do not loop back on themselves, therefore every > >>> model RR layout that is continuous running is a "fantasy". [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > default term of opprobium? FWIW, I've just celebrated my 44th birthday - > I'm a little long in the tooth to be classed as juvenile.) A very accurate conclusion. > Blanket statements such as the one above, particularly when they are > flatly wrong, make my patience evaporate just as rapidly. > >>> Point to point layouts would need to be run in a straight line to > >>> be realistic, so any that run around a room would be a "fantasy" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > <would> run around the walls of a room - no amount of sophistry or > semantic wrangling will alter that. > > Not many railroads loop their east end back to join their west. Of > > course, "there's a prototype for everything" as they say. You can [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > single digits, that could actually be modelled in no-compression, > > no-compromise entirety in a small scale and a large basement. > Which many people do. And in doing so they invalidate the various claims > made here that "it can't be done". Give us some examples Mark. No compression means scale curves. > > But the roads that most people model don't have those convenient > > features, so the best we can do is an abstraction (IOW, a "fantasy") [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > know what they're up to, so you can't unequivocally state what they can > and can't achieve. They cannot model the line that you ride on that forms a loop accurately in any scale. Many compromises are required. Mark is talking the about the Sydney suburban system. Explain how you would do it in HO expert layout designer other than as a fantasy. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > > "Real" railroads do not loop back on themselves, therefore every > > model RR layout that is continuous running is a "fantasy". [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Field and Lake Louise, no? Obviously the builders of the CPR didn't > consult you beforehand. Mark, why don't you tell us about your non fantasy trackplan on the HO layout you have. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > > Terry, better do what Mark insists, he is tired of you humiliating > > him in public. > > I am tired of wasting time responding to his inane drivel. The > humiliation is all his. Mark Newton could have saved allot of time by producing evidence of his alleged modelling skills. > > He wants you to take it private. I know you have nothing to hide, > > Terry has quite a lot to hide, as it happens. Ask him why his employer > closely monitors his internet usage these days. Mark talking fiction again. Like Mark's model railway, not much facts about it in public, why? > > But Mark obviously does not want to be shown up in public. Of course not. He has nothing worth showing. > Mark obviously doesn't want to participate any more in Terry's > self-aggrandizing bullshit. If he was genuinely interested in discussing > information or ideas he could quite happily do so via e-mail or > telephone, as do many others. As for seeing my layouts, he lives quite > close to me, and has an open invitation to visit me at any time he cares > to. End of story. Swearing again in what is usually a civilised newsgroup. Stay in the gutter if you like Mark. Until you apologise for your public attacks on my character, no private e-mail or visit is going to happen. I intend to share any information with all here. I do not intend wasting my time going to see a layout that is not worth publication here, or is owned by a foul mouthed broom pushing expert.. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > Mark Newton could have saved allot of time by producing evidence of his > alleged modelling skills. Why should he bother, when he's able to play you guys like a cheap fiddle? SignatureJohn Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm What one believes to be true either is true or becomes true. -John Lilly >>Terry has quite a lot to hide, as it happens. Ask him why his employer >>closely monitors his internet usage these days. >> > Mark talking fiction again. So you deny that the Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering School was the subject of an internal investigation? An investigation that found there were flagrant breaches of the uni's guidelines on appropriate internet use? > >>Terry has quite a lot to hide, as it happens. Ask him why his employer > >>closely monitors his internet usage these days. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > there were flagrant breaches of the uni's guidelines on appropriate > internet use? Students downloading music, video's ect beyond their limits. Of course the organisation you work for has had plenty of wrong doing by individuals, that's the nature of people. Irrelevant to my position and this newsgroup. How about telling us something about your HO layout expert. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates >> So you deny that the Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering School >> was the subject of an internal investigation? An investigation that >> found there were flagrant breaches of the uni's guidelines on >> appropriate internet use? > Students downloading music, video's ect beyond their limits. No, not just students, and not just anything as innocuous as music and videos. > Of course the organisation you work for has had plenty of wrong doing > by individuals, that's the nature of people. Indeed, but I can't recall the last time that anyone in my depot got themselves into strife for downloading pornography on a work computer during working hours. I think I still have a copy of the report, I'll have to find the thing and post a link to it. > >> So you deny that the Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering School > >> was the subject of an internal investigation? An investigation that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I think I still have a copy of the report, I'll have to find the thing > and post a link to it. Be careful you don't accidently post a link to your private porn sites, you know the ones I am talking about Marty Hall > Be careful you don't accidently post a link to your private porn > sites, you know the ones I am talking about I don't, Jerry, perhaps you would be so good as to post them here for my enlightenment. > > Indeed, but I can't recall the last time that anyone in my depot got > > themselves into strife for downloading pornography on a work computer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sites, you know the ones I am talking about > Marty Hall Actually the key phrase in the above is "during work hours." Mork always waits until he punches out to go back on the internet and visit his favourite sites. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm >Mark Newton could have saved allot of time by producing evidence of his >alleged modelling skills. Well, he saves more time by ~not~ producing evidence. Looks like it's ~your~ time that's being wasted... Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. > > Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I guess you might call it a 'Petrol electric'. (S) Sure, so what do you call a genuine gas-electric? > > Regards, > > Greg.P. >> > Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Sure, so what do you call a genuine gas-electric? If by "genuine" you mean one that uses flammable gas for fuel, it would still be a gas electric. If you mean one that uses helium, it would be called a boat anchor. Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >> > Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If by "genuine" you mean one that uses flammable gas for fuel, it would still be a > gas electric. If you mean one that uses helium, it would be called a boat anchor. You don't see any illogicality in calling two different items by the same name? > Sure, so what do you call a genuine gas-electric? Shuffling across the wool carpet on a dry winter day after a green chile burrito lunch, I might qualify. SignatureSteve Caple >>>Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>>Regards, >>>Greg.P. Would it be a Zeppelin? :) > >>>Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > Would it be a Zeppelin? :) I have a model of one of those - the prototype was powered by a BMW petrol aircraft engine and a propeller! It held the absolute rail speed record for 24 years. (230 km/hr) There are plenty of (industrial) locos in the world powered by gas (as opposed to gasoline/petrol). Regards, Greg.P. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.