Junctionmad

Simplest answer would be to shut intercity rail. No EU meddling then. No one would notice the loss anyway. The fact is privatised or not the irish heavy interurban rail network is a dinosaur, uncompetitive in travel time , poor services, constant " efficiency " cut backs. It exists because the political will doesn't exist to close it and take on the unions. The motorway networks has rendered the whole interurban rail network utterly redundant. Why would I take two hours to travel from dunlOghaire to gorey when I can drive it in 50 mins ( and that's door to door timing )

because when I saw these rakes running back empty to wellington bridge in the 70s there was always one or two wagons with the doors open

Hmm n real life the door ended up above the rail height when open ??

Yes because ultimately you cannot have any service where operating losses continue to increase despite massive efficiency progrsmmes, capital investment etc. leaving aside capital costs. The service must be payed for by the users and rail passagners have never in recent history been prepared to do that. Ultimately such business fail

Indeed, just finished reading a 2001 esri critique of strategic rail reviews of IE. Makes thougt provoking reading as to why we should have any intercity rail services. For example , it shows Dublin cork in 2001 as having the worst performance financially when taken against costs , passagner and trip length.

Don't forget to model a few with the doors down !!

various flight controllers, KK2.0, multiwii, and arducopter , ublok gps, various Turnigy motors and a variety of ESCs most with SimonK software

As a drone owner ( quadcopter -hobbyking custom build, taranis radio with telemetry ) I think it's certainly madness for any " hobby" drone to fly over people's heads. GPS return to home is quite limited and any number of components in a quadcopter can fail bringing the device uncontrollably to the ground. Quad copters and drone flyers are already ostracised from enough flying clubs , without hobby drones crashing into crowds.

I made the point that landowner permission is not required as far as I understand. That's doesn't mean it's not a good thing to have

I have more then a passing interest in this line , my great grandfather was the site engineer in charge of the building of the barrow railway bridge ! He worked for sir William arrol & co. The builders He also oversaw the construction of the Arrol gantry in H&w in Belfast which was used in the construction of the titanic and her sisters My grandmother clearly remembers living in Belfast for over a year ( she didn't like the place ! )

The terms are not actually interchangeable by the way These are catch points. Catch points tend to be exclusive to running lines and are sprung to allow a train in the trailing direction to push the blades over. They used to commonly found at the base of inclines to prevent runaways from re entering a station or junction. They are not under the control of a signal centre. Trap points are or used to be far more common And are/were used to prevent trains from inadvertently accessing running lines when they were not signalled to do so. They are controlled by point rodding and under the control pf a signalling centre. Typcally the were facing points and diverted the train off the track completely or into a sand drag. ( there one like that at limerick junction ) The use of a semaphore ground signal mounted on a colour light is unusual , must be a transistuon thing or some holdover from the power operated Hueston box maybe , shunt signals are alway passed " at caution" , ie slowly typically 5 mph

Yes but you are not allowed " first person viewing " , it must be flown from the ground using normal eyesight See https://www.iaa.ie/media/DRONESQuestionsandAnswersFinal1.PDF for a FAQ Ps I wasn't specifically talking about the drone mentioned in this thread, more a general situation

Actually no more then you do not have rights to minerals under your land , you have no rights to control anything above your land either. Hence landowner permission is actually not required. However a drone with a camera is regarded as a remotely piloted plane and comes under the control of the irish aviation authority and hence must be licensed and it's places of operation controlled. It's worth noting that a drone is not a model aircraft and does not come under the insurance cover of the model aeronautical society of iteland I would suggest that drones never be flown over populated areas as a result

Big issue with iMateralise is they don't allow spures. This makes assembling a model from more then one part very expensive and very very expensive if you want small parts

By the way , has anyone here tried various types of tumble finishing on FUD material. I think a lot of issues with 3D is that people designing parts arnt engineers ( either mechanical CAD etc ) I see some good results mentioned on tumbling with salt on a RC model ship building forum or perhaps grit blasting with soda maybe

Shapeways FUD is 30 micron in Z and 60 micron in x,Y that's not the same as saying you can build detail to that level as that's often more a material function.

Signalling and detection systems have nothing to do with dcc in the main , In reality with any sort of complex detection and or signalling including locking etc, you are looking at considering a layout bus or at very least a wiring multiplexer , otherwise the layout wiring begins to resemble a 1950s telephone exchange. ! In my view dcc has some significant merits over DC. Especially in more complex layouts, ( rather then simply large ones). It also allows for things like frog juicers which make wiring complex track configurations , easier. But at the end of the day. It's horses for courses and personal comforts zones etc

Ipi thought the track isn't safe all the Way through, wasn't some stolen

actually 25um is currently achievable, its things like lead screw issues etc that cause rippling and what not.

fundementally DCC is about " cab control " and reducing the amount of wiring needed to achieve that in DC layouts. reasonable cab control can be achieved/simulated in DC layouts , but as the layout becomes more complex the switching becomes a rats nest. However the ancillary aspects are a benefits like lights etc, and the ability to drive layout accessories like turnouts etc from the DCC system ( though its not a system I personally like as I prefer a proper layout bus )

my own view is that 3d printing offers lots for the railway modeller, especially for smaller items where the surface finish isn't an issue, line side details etc. Im personally looking at doing ground signals and facing point locking mechanisms in 3D, for example. for larger full models, its hit an miss. Again personally if I cant get a model except in 3D, then thats good enough as the alternative is no model at all. Im too old to go waiting years for things that never might appear .

The beauty of dcc is of course you can have lights , markers sound etc that are in effect difficult or impossible with DC. Also dcc wiring is far simpler then DC wiring for anything other then the most trivial of layouts. Running is better under dcc as the full track voltage is always available. ( and is greater then 12v ).

The 2014 rail review clearly indicates its the older locomotives that are being considered It would never be justified to re-engine the relatively newer 201s ,. especially since most are lying idle

I see in the 2014 review, IE are considering re-engineing the 071's with more fuel efficient stop-start engines . http://www.irishrail.ie/media/iarnrod-eireann-annual-report-2014.pdf?v=gradkca perhaps its the end of the glorious trash we have come to love so well. !!

I think long term , sound will be a major part of diesel models in particular, it sounds daft on steam models. It will get integrated better and be a useful addition as for DCC, well its a favourite drum of yours Noel, in reality the on-track spec of DCC combined with Railcom, sorts most of the issues you mention. BUT NMRA is riven with politics and the influence of Digitrak, the issues with Lenz etc are well documented. This has lead to DCC stalling . There is no alternative standard on the horizon. CV programming could be fixed by adding railcom as CVs can be programmed on the main and fast too, after that its just user interface software arguably the hobby is not " little boys with train sets " anymore, hence the 2015 costumer is a techno modelling boffin as you know I have my own DCC system, with my own software via MERG, with software I can actually deal with the majority of issues you mention for example Railcom+ can identify locos and extract CVs from a database and program the loco without further user intervention its all there already Noel, it just requires $$$$