Subject:
|
Re: Low-tech & low cost controls
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 May 2002 02:23:17 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
(jrclark@nospam.aol.com)StopSpam()
|
Viewed:
|
562 times
|
| |
|
|
Hold on for a few weeks. I have a new design to present which meets all
your criteria for a remotely operated switch.
In the meantime, you should absolutely design your layout for manual
switching. It is much more satisfying (and prototypical!) during an
operating session. Save remote switching for actual remote locations,
and try to minimize those.
Rick C.
Pedro Silva wrote:
> I'm having problems with automating switches right now. So far, all the
> solutions I have encoutered involve either modifiing the switch, or the use
> of parts I do not have. I'll stick to manual for the time being, but I'll
> design the layout in such a way that a future motorization is easy.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Low-tech & low cost controls
|
| In lugnet.trains, Ed McGlynn writes: (snipped) (...) This one, I have put to work so far in my current layout. It's the easy part, I think... (...) But how will the TS reach the inner loop, if the switch in the center is set to straight? Shouldn't (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
