Subject:
|
Re: A question about Insulation between tracks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Mar 2001 03:54:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
903 times
|
| |
|
|
Brian Williams <brian_williams@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:GA49y7.7C2@lugnet.com...
> The scenario you are proposing in indeed a problem. It happens commonly
> when using block control or reversing loops. A couple sugguestions:
[snip]
> 3. Both the above approaches require good awareness to avoid shorts which
> will inevitably occur. Another approach, if your prototype allows it, is • to
> make working overhead caternary which serves as ground and then make both
> rails the positive feed. You'll never have a short.
Of course, then you have the possibility of two trains having a head-on.....
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A question about Insulation between tracks
|
| (...) I'm not sure I agree. Can you take me through it? If I have two trains on the same block, they will go the same direction, whether they get power from catenary with return through both rails, or whether they get power just from the rails. If I (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question about Insulation between tracks
|
| The scenario you are proposing in indeed a problem. It happens commonly when using block control or reversing loops. A couple sugguestions: 1. If you are using block control, then create shorter blocks and adopt a rule that no two trains can operate (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
