Subject:
|
Re: A question about Insulation between tracks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:58:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
808 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> Brian Williams <brian_williams@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> > 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.....
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 have two trains on different blocks, yes, they could head on at the
block boundary but that's true either way.
At least that's why my reasoning tells me. Nothing has changed from regular
model railroading.
(Lionel(??) AC units could head on because they have reversers and the power
is always the same on the rails)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question about Insulation between tracks
|
| (...) Using a catenary supply, you have (effectively) 0V at the rails, and +9V..-9V overhead for forward / reverse. So +9V gives you forward. Whichever way the train is facing, it'll go forward. Two trains on the same track facing in opposite (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
