.

Blog Comments

  1. deneban's Avatar
    Graphics have been restored. Graphic provider changed their domain name!
  2. deneban's Avatar
    Yes, log into your google account, click on the aps icon in the upper right, click on the maps icon dropping down below it. Then in the maps menu icon in the upper left, select "my maps." Note that you cannot be in google's "lite mode," and must switch to the full "3D" maps.
  3. ang4ben's Avatar
    Can you still do it the same way now, google is updated?
  4. boleyd's Avatar
    Extremely impressive. I like the approach of creating the intersection of several lines in a quite complex environment. A challenge few would accept. Rather than a 100 miles of boring route you portal (if I am correct) trains to and from the Fostoria yards. That is where the real action is. Creating a scenario/session that would cover one week would be another amazing feat that very few, if any, might take on. Those seeking a choo-choo game would find this way beyond their liking. That is why a some simpler scenarios would help most people to grasp what has been done in the route and how closely it adheres to reality. Someone could make a career keeping it current to real-life activities.
  5. boyerm25's Avatar
    Wow! This really takes prototypicality to a whole new level.
  6. AJ_Fox's Avatar
    Very nice research.

    Cheers

    AJ
  7. ATSF854's Avatar
    Thanks for posting this, it actually has helped me out a quite a bit and I can see a lot of future uses in terms of making bridges to an accurate scale.

    I would recommend posting this in a forum topic as it is really helpful.
  8. deneban's Avatar
    The defunct Mass Central used the same scheme, in case they are in the market for a four-axle diesel.
  9. mp202's Avatar
    They were originally from the Chicago & Illinois Midland, but when the Genessee & Wyoming bought the railroad back in '96(?), they repainted everything orange and black, hence the restored look.
  10. deneban's Avatar
    Now that is a good point - shove cabeese are used to satisfy a labor union requirement for brakemen, if the yard is beyond a certain distance from the office. So I will give credit for this in the main post as being a required service.

    In the northeast where I am from we never see this because our systems are more centralized, and we don't have remote sorting going on, so they just get on the last ladder. Still I must say these two I&M cabeese look restored. But you've shown me two now on the road, so yeah they are beasts of burden.
    Updated September 28th, 2013 at 03:49 PM by deneban
  11. mp202's Avatar
    These cabeese are still used in revenue service, but on very rare occasions. They are used as "shoving platforms" more often than not.

    Here is a picture of an I&M caboose on a Westbound TPW freight.

    (Not my photo)

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/2661492...pool-imrr-tzpr
  12. deneban's Avatar
    Of course they are brought out for publicity, steam, and railfan events. What is different is to see them in daily revenue service with the signs of daily wear and tear and albeit to fulfill a legal requirement! That's a good point an I will revise the post to differentiate.

    PS That I&M was obviously spruced up at one time. You just could not have an SD70AC and three flat cars, the caboose rounded out the consist. Obviously CAT bought or rented this caboose because it does not match the SD70AC paint scheme yellow an white. So I think your caboose is maintained by a historical society or something. What was a shame is they did not repaint the miserable-looking TTX flatcars that had the CAT goods on them. I thought that train was a half-hearted effort and GE had a good laugh.
    Updated September 27th, 2013 at 04:58 PM by deneban
  13. mp202's Avatar
    That's not really a surprise by any means. However, the Illinois & Midland still uses their two cabeese on rare occasions. The most recent usage was on the EMDX 1201 CAT Demonstration Train in Peoria.

  14. deneban's Avatar
    I think I am going with making the two closest 2 x 2 intersections a 4 x 2 intersection, until something else better pops up. This in fact accomplishes the goal of allowing 2 in the triangle.
  15. boyerm25's Avatar
    Yeah, but I see how it wouldn't work for fostoria. It wouldn't allow more than one train to enter at the same time.
  16. deneban's Avatar
    Yes I see your point, I stand corrected. Every approach to the diamond would need its own rule to accomplish that (yikes!).
  17. boyerm25's Avatar
    Actually, say you have a double track crossing. With TMS, you could add two copies of the rule, and have trains on Main1 only trip the signals on Main2, and vice versa. I see how it wouldn't work for fostoria though. If you download Sniper297's chicago metro 3 and the corresponding session (I forget what it is called, something about 40th 2030), you can see how he used TMS to control western ave. (4 track by 4 track) so parallel trains can pass at the same time but no collisions will happen,
  18. deneban's Avatar
    ASB also offers "on triggering" and "off triggering" for a single track. With Maggs' rule, all signals in the rule must clear to trigger the off (all green). This means that if you use Magg's rule on double track diamonds, one of a pair of parallel trains would have to stop for no reason because its counterpart tripped all red.
  19. boyerm25's Avatar
    Ah, well, I've never understood ATLS or ASB.
  20. deneban's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by boyerm25
    GAH! --- Just use the trigger multiple signals thingy - way easier
    Hey boyerm25, thanks for the suggestion, I have looked into it.

    I am afraid I am not seeing how using that rule would not cause the same problems. If I added three such "trigger multiple signals" rules to the session to control the three intersections, there is still a potential to develop gridlock (i.e. three trains entering the triangle can obstruct each other from leaving the triangle.)

    Both systems can stop all traffic if one train enters the triangle, but that is not how the real thing operates, because the triangle is too large and too busy for one train at a time.

    As with ASB, without a way to compare two inputs, neither control system can simulate the real mode of operation of 2 trains permitted in the triangle at once, and a third prohibited. A viable control system would stop all traffic from entering the triangle if condition "A": a train is in the triangle, exists and condition "B": a second train has entered the triangle
    , are both happening. That requires a comparison device. Neither the ASB controller nor Magg's rule controller can accept an input from another controller in addition to trigger input, which is what is needed for this objective.

    Also, I don't agree that rule is easier to use then ASB, with Magg's rule, you have to name all the triggers. In ASB you just assign your triggers to the same channel.










Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast