Tallpaul69

Hi T'other Paul, I have returned to normal communication after our family weekend, which is why I didn't comment on this earlier. The above hits the nail on the head as far as i am concerned, but it is a shame no one has commented! I can think of two reasons for this ;- 1) The tTrain community have never thought of this , so have no idea if it works, or how to respond! or:- 2) They are fed up with us and hope that if they ignore us we will go away! For my part, this seems to suggest the score is TrainController 1- iTrain 0 So maybe I should concentrate on TrainController? Cheers Paul

Thanks Paul, some good thoughts there. And many thanks also for the plans you have been doing, which, I need to explain to the rest of the readers, put onto one schematic plan my three plans, Bradenham (the continuous run), Wycombe End, (the terminal layout) , and "New Board 2" (the new, yet to be made, board linking the other two). This update is just a quick one as we have family staying this weekend and so I will not get an opportunity to post much else until sometime next week. Progress on the possible automation of one set of six trains to run while I manually perform other tasks has been slow, although I am hopeful that Paul (5BarVT)' involvement will get things moving. I had hoped my 7810 Manor would show this week, but as of yesterday my order at Rails was still outstanding. However, Accurascale's posting on the Manor thread to the effect that all Model Shop orders and individual orders would despatch this week, leads me to hope I might see it by the end of next week! This of course depends on Rails turn round time! From my point of view, another underwhelming list this week of new models from Bachmann, but maybe there will be a bumper issue for the New Year. Cheers for now, Paul

I am sorry Andy that you find my reply somewhat disingenuous and to a point insulting, because that is exactly how I feel about some of the advice I have received. In reply, here are a few observations:- OK, I may have used the word "automation" where I was really referring to "installing detection" I do understand the difference between the two. I am sure there are things that I know a lot more than you about, but I would not moan at you for using the wrong term and conclude from that that you do not understand that subject. If my initial post was quite clear, why was someone getting hot under the collar and accusing me of moving the goalposts when I posted the detail of the board that has yet to be built? I used PC software all my working life, but of course some of that was the multimillion dollar budget packages, which are a different thing to low budget model railway software. However, some of it was a tad clunky, especially fifty years ago, compared with current offerings. I do not find the pc screens confusing, I merely cannot position a laptop in my railway room in the same operating position as I would adopt in my work or home office desk. I could go on, but life is too short, so we will just agree to differ!! Enjoy your modelling, what ever your enthusiasm! Paul

Hi There, I hope you don't mind me explaining something of my interests and situation, so that you may better understand why I have said what I have said, and why I want to do/ cannot do certain courses of action. I said:- I suppose also I just don't see the point of the cost and complication of a whole load of feedbacks that I am unlikely to use because they are in places I only intend to use manually. I perhaps more correctly should have said:- I suppose also I just don't see the point of the cost and complication of a whole load of feedbacks that I am unlikely to want to drive trains automatically on because they are in places I only intend to use manually. Yes, If I had a friend to operate with me then perhaps that would be a better solution, but I don't! I don't belong to any clubs mainly because I cannot get to meetings which are mainly in the evenings. I don't now drive, I can't afford taxis, there are no appropriate buses, and I now dislike the dark whereas once I enjoyed it, so that solution isn't open to me! You said:- You therefore need to let the computer 'see' the trains that you want it to drive, 'see' the track that you want it to drive those trains on, but also 'see' anything that you might want to manually drive onto these tracks and which will therefore conflict with what the software thought was happening. That's where it gets to the point of needing to install feedbacks across most of the layout. This is true if you want to mix automatic working and manual working on the same tracks at the same time. I cant see wanting to do this, I anticipate having automated periods (except for shunting in sidings), followed by fully manual periods. I am not a layout builder, my interest is in operation, so I only want to hand to the computer routine operations while I do more interesting manual operations. You also said:- It appears that you want to limit what the software is allowed to do, because you're trying to limit it to only drive those six trains (hence why you can't identify other benefits). It seems to me that the audience could have helped by suggesting those benefits?? I won't bore everyone by going on any more! I hope the above helps folks understand me better? Cheers Paul

Hey folks, Its funny how on the one hand I am told that detection sections are so easy you just require them everywhere on your layout and everything will be fine, and then on the other I am told that a layout builder might not be able to interpret my requirements! Its a shame that a number of people instead of asking me about other aspects of my layout and how I intend to operate it so as to encourage me to go for automation by illustrating to me what other beneficial uses I might find for automation, other than running my six trains while i do other things on the layout, chose instead to preach to me that I was foolish because I did not accept their dictates to install full automation without question! Never mind, railway modelling is a broad church, we cannot possibly agree on all things, so we will agree to disagree. When I find a way to achieve what I want to achieve within the budget i think appropriate, I will be glad that this turned out to be a blind alley. Cheers all, Paul

Iain, In my very first posting in this thread I detailed the three elements of my layout, so there being a board such as I have just posted should not be a surprise to you, even though you did not know the detail! Of course, you could have asked me to post track plans at that stage, but you didn't? Ah well, since I have such little understanding, and am unwilling to accept everything I am told without question, it is Just as well I am almost decided not to proceed with "Automation" isn't it? Cheers Paul

What are the benefits to me and the problems of automatic operation on my layout? Benefits 1) I can run three trains in each direction round my continuous circuit while I concentrate on activities such as shunting the station yard. 2) Er............ Problems 1) Need to have sidings dedicated to holding the "automatic" trains while the loops on the continuous run are used for other trains. 2)Impracticality of the need for a large screen Laptop that can be operated from my operating position, because of the complexity of the iTrain screen, and the need to read and take action from a number of drop down menus; rather than using a handheld mini. 3) cost of implementation - including installation of feedbacks, cost of feedback multiplexers, doubling of labour costs if I change builder to a suggested builder. 4) Possible delay in building from above? The modification to the operating schedule posted above will look like this:- Start with Manual running to reflect the early morning start up of trains, then continue with higher density of traffic in the morning rush hour. (Delete:-End the manual period by clearing the six loops for the automated trains. Run the six Automated trains out of their board 2 sidings into the six loops. Proceed with Automated running of the six trains ) Substitute Run a train from a board 2 sidings into the down (clockwise) loops. Run a train from another board 2 siding (or the terminal station) to an up (anticlockwise) loop. run loco round train. Run the two above trains round the circuit a number of times. While they run, undertake shunting of stock dropped into station yard by earlier manual trains. Stop circuiting trains in loops and/or Return automated trains to their board 2 sidings Undertake middle of the day manual running etc. repeat the above moves Resume manual operation for afternoon rush hour and evening run down of services, also run manually night freights. The above sequence would take several operating sessions. The second session would take up where the first left off etc.etc. So the main difference is that trains tail chase while shunting etc. carried out. I can live with that! This is just first thoughts, I will update the pros and cons as thoughts come to me! Cheers Paul

Yes, I was running with 8 way modules! I am currently doing a cost benefit analysis of going with iTrain and automation. It doesn't look good, as the benefits don't fill me with enthusiasm! There are lots of more beneficial things I could spend the money on. Maybe someone can give me an unbiased view?

Ian, taking things in reverse order:- I don't have anywhere to build even a test track, or to store it, hence my thinking of a folding board. I don't think any one makes an off the shelf one? In my position, I have to pass any construction over to others. It has worked so far, Covid being the worse problem! Your thoughts on inter weaving automatic and manual operation sound just great. However, several postings to this thread have, it appears to me, implied that it can't be done. Yes, I may have to have more sensors than I initially thought, it just seems a waste of time, effort, and money to put in a lot that I am never likely to use. Where is the fun in automated shunting, I might as well sit in the comfort of my living room and watch railway videos on my large screen TV! So if everyone agrees it can be done, why is there nothing on the videos (perhaps it is hidden in the 30 somthing episode?). Please can everyone confirm, yes, it can be done, (you may add provisos!), just to put my mind at rest? (Apart from you and Paul who say it can!) Many thanks everyone, in advance, for the continued input (even those things I don't agree with!) Cheers for now Paul

Hi Paul, Attached is the promised plan of the New Board 2 which will link the continuous run layout to the terminal layout, by replacing the current terminal layout fiddle yard with a slightly larger board that has a revised fiddle yard. Simplistically, the fiddle yard is turned round to face the continuous run rather than the terminal. There are in addition more sidings and a turntable. I am proposing that the group of 4 sidings that start in the centre bottom of the plan, plus one of the loops leading to them and the siding to the left of that loop are the six sidings to hold the six "automated" trains when they are not on the continuous run. I cannot use both loops for this as I need to keep one clear for access to the turntable. They have to be off the continuous run when I am running the layout manually as I need the loops for other trains. I had been planning to use the 4 sidings as the area to add to/take off stock on the layout, but I can't work out anywhere else to give the six "automated" trains their own space. Hopefully, I can still use these sidings to move the stock but probably this is not allowed by iTrain, in which case I will have to do it adjacent to the station. Not ideal!! So a running sequence would look like this:- Start with Manual running to reflect the early morning start up of trains, then continue with higher density of traffic in the morning rush hour. End the manual period by clearing the six loops for the automated trains. Run the six Automated trains out of their board 2 sidings into the six loops. Proceed with Automated running of the six trains While they run, undertake shunting of stock dropped into station yard by earlier manual trains. Stop Automated running. Return automated trains to their board 2 sidings Undertake middle of the day manual running Clear the six loops ready for automated running. Repeat earlier Automated running sequence (hopefully with changed locos from earlier) Undertake further shunting etc. Return automated trains to their Board 2 sidings. Resume manual operation for afternoon rush hour and evening run down of services, also run manually night freights. The above sequence would take several operating sessions. The second session would take up where the first left off etc.etc. By the way, Iain doesn't think your idea for the goods yard will work, so I am unsure how to proceed. Never mind, I expect something will turn up! Cheers Paul

Hi Iain, You mean the cost of a module for feedbacks across the station yard is around £80. I estimate that the number of feedbacks across the whole layout, by which I mean the continuous run, the currently separate terminal layout, and the to be made new board 2 which will link the above two, is at least 90! - so 12 modules. Here is the layout, which you haven't seen before, of the new board 2. I have omitted a number of sidings for clarity. I am also putting up this layout as promised in my response to Paul's posting last night. I will comment in detail separately on ITGs last posting, but what he says appears to be compatible with running manual and automated trains alongside each other, which is what I am trying to achieve. His and Paul's postings seem to me to be the only ones that suggest this is possible. But maybe I am just not understanding some of the posts, for which I apologise. I suppose also I just don't see the point of the cost and complication of a whole load of feedbacks that I am unlikely to use because they are in places I only intend to use manually. This applies to at least half of the above figure of 90 feedbacks! So that means 6 modules I won't use - say £500? plus of course the wiring. Cheers for now, Paul

If I stick to the Z21 command station, probably the Roco units?

Thanks Paul, this looks like a workable set of solutions:- I do have to work out how I get the IN and OUT Blocks to be long enough to hold the longest train that any of the six loops at the top of the layout can hold. As planned at the moment they could only be about 3 Mk1 lengths after the start of the IN and OUT blocks, as beyond that is a double junction from where one double track leads into a loop then on by single track to the scenic terminal board, and the other double track leads to a loop beyond which there is a set of fiddle yard sidings and a point off to a turntable. So I think the IN and OUT Blocks will have to extend through the double junction to the loop beyond (the one that leads to the further fiddle yard sidings. The section between the continuous run boards and the scenic terminal board including the additional fiddle yard sidings has not yet been built, so can be rejigged, although I am concerned not to loose the fiddle yard sidings as this would reduce the number of trains that the layout can hold and for a mainline it could be argued that this number is quite small! I will post a sketch of the proposed tracks in this area tomorrow. I need to label it in line with the titles used above. At the moment there are notes which have only meaning to me! So please hold any comments on the above until you see this new plan. With regard to the station yard, I suggest the IN/OUT track would be that between two points and running in-between S14 and S13 on the above plan. Many thanks Paul

Iain and Paul, Thanks for bearing with me, I realise I am a pain constantly querying what is posted, but I have only one chance to get this right! I f funds are wasted on things that don't do what I expect, then I am stuck! So:- Iain, A few posts ago you said:- "I suggest that your best route to solve your issues is to find someone who is operating automation, and I would actually stick with someone planning to use your chosen software because whilst the end result is the same the modus operando between all the programs is different and 'understanding' the wrong one will only add to your confusion in achieving your objective." I agree that such a course of action would be beneficial. However, it is easier said than done. Not being a member of a club, and being situated where those that are in my area have club meet nights that are quite difficult to get to not being able to drive, and bus services finishing quite early in the evening, I don't think it works. So I must soldier on! I am sorry if I misinterpreted what you said, but I have learnt the hard way that it is often what isn't said or is implied, that is more important than what is plainly said. Paul, thanks for your latest input, what you suggest seems a sensible and pragmatic way forward. I intend to work on that basis, maybe I have to change software? Another suggestion, I think from ITG, was a small test layout, and I am currently looking for someone to do this for me. Last night I had decided to pack in the iTrain videos, but maybe I will give them another go, and continue to post here any problems I find, in the hope someone can help me out? Please keep the comments coming, Best regards Paul

Iain, That sounds like you are saying that I have to automate the whole layout or not at all, and either run it all under automation or all manually, not part and part as I wanted? I hope I am misunderstanding you? If, I am not, then I don't think automation is for me! I will manage without the automatic circulating trains while I carry out shunting or other manoeuvres manually. The manual aspects provide the main enjoyment, not watching the whole thing run automatically! Thanks for your and everyone's help, Cheers Paul

Iain, it depends on the points relevance to my thread! Pauls reference to Traincontroller seemed a useful illustration, so I thought it was relevant. Arguments about different ways to interface with JMRI don't seem relevant to me? Yes, thread drift is something we have to put up with, but surely there is no harm in gently, and politely trying to pull things back on topic! Cheers Paul

OK Iain, I thought that the feedbacks needed might be less now as I am looking at limited automation rather than the full automation of two years ago, but I guess I can work out most of what needs deleting such as in the station yard! At the time I asked you to look at it, I was not aware that I needed to have feedbacks in track where there are points even if they are not going to be used under my automation. Cheers Paul

Nigel, Iain and David, and anyone else interested in ins and outs of running JMRI:- Yet another input to my thread on "Can I Automate my Fiddle yard?", that as far as i can see adds nothing to my knowledge, as this is not something I am considering using. So can I politely suggest you start a separate thread on the subject? Many thanks Paul

Hi All, I am making this request because I am no baseboard or layout builder. I have two layouts built for me by professional builders that a third builder is going to integrate for me. I am examining whether I should have him include wiring etc. for automation. It has been suggested to me I need an automation test track to avoid costly mistakes on the main integration project. This needs to be say, a 6ft x4ft surface, foldable on itself to 2x 3ft x 4ft size to protect the track etc . in storage. I have nowhere to place it permanently! The track(code 100) needs to be a single track oval, with a loop on one long side. There needs to be c6 sidings connected to the other long side from the loop, three facing in each direction on the circuit of track. All electrics (DCC), point motors and current measurement wiring for train location must be fitted. I will supply the command station, iTrack software, laptop etc. I suggest track etc. is on cork base. No signals, scenics, or ballasting etc. needed. Any queries please PM me. I need the layout complete and delivered to me in Leighton Buzzard (South Bedfordshire) before the beginning of 2024. Many thanks Paul

Good Afternoon everyone, Ij my last post I said i would put up a plan of the layout and give some details of the automation i wanted to achieve. So here is the layout. This is the current layout, there will be an additional loop and sidings added at the top of the layout so that there are three tracks in the fiddle yard in each direction. At the beginning of a session the trains that will later work automatically are in the fiddle yard or the branch terminally that are accessed via the double junction at the left side of the plan. Firstly, a freight train will proceed under manual control from the or terminal wrong road via the double junction to the middle siding on the lower set of three loops (which I will call the Up loops. On arrival I will run its loco round it via the top of the up loops and reverse the train so it is in its loop. All setting of the points will be done manually . Next I will follow a similar procedure with another freight , but this time working right road to the middle of the upper(or Down sidings. The loco on this train will not need to run round . Next another Up train will follow the same procedure as the first up train. Then another Down train will follow a similar procedure to the first down train. The final Up train will be a DMU so will follow a similar procedure to the first two Ip trains, except no running round will be required because it will be a DMU (or sometimes an Auto train!) With the six loops having each a train I would want to turn a switch, press a button, or click on a button on the screen to set the automation in train. First a down train will circuit the continuous run, non stop, back to its initial loop. While it is in motion an Up train will start to circulate, the timing being such that the two trains do not pass in the station platforms . Different types of train will run at different speeds Once all six trains have completed their circulations, I will have two options:- 1) repeat the above. 2) return to manual control and return the six trains to the fiddle yard and terminal in a reverse of the initial procedure. I might then repeat the exercise with a different set of six trains or continue with manual control which might involve some of the six trains. I appreciate all trains used automatically will need to be detailed in iTrain. I hope this makes sense to you readers? Cheers Paul

Hi Paul, Thanks for the above, that's really helpful. Talking of DMUs, how do you deal with end car driven ones and centre car driven ones, in the same loop or siding (at different times)? Is it best to divide the loop/siding into three to cope with the three positions that the motor might be in - front car, centre car or rear car? Your point about changing traction is a fair one, but I guess having "trains" that have a "loco" plus "Express1", or "Express2", or "Freight1" or "Freight2", I can manage! In my next post I will put up a plan of the round and round element of the layout to explain in more detail how I want to use the automation and also run the same trains manually. Cheers for now Paul

Has anyone yet received a sound fitted 7810 Draycott Manor , ordered direct from Accurascale or or like me, via Rails? Cheers

I hope everyone is ready for Halloween? On the modelling front I am just starting to get to grips with iTrajn software, which seems from responses on my fiddle yard automation thread to be the most recommended for model railway automation. However, to get to understand this screen I have a course of 30+ videos on Youtube, each 15-20 minutes long to plough through! So far, I have looked at the first two and already I have concerns:- I had been looking to use a handheld Mini computer as my interface with iTrain, but the amount of information on the display suggests I need to use a laptop with a largish screen, which, in itself, is not a problem, it is just that I don't have anywhere handy in my Railway Room to position such a big screen without masking a chunk of the railway. And it is not just a screen, I need to be able to use the computer, so I can't put it on the wall. Secondly, the second video suggests i have to input details of every item of rollingstock on the layout as well as details of the engines, signals, every length of track and point, never mind uncouplers and anything else attached to the railway. I am hoping that further into the videos I will find that for my limited use some data is not necessary and that there are shortcuts to all this data entry. I will keep you updated on how I get on. But meanwhile, don't forget to put your clocks back Saturday night (in the UK that is)! Cheers for now, Paul

Thanks for your input Paul, As you can see from my last two posts, I have a few concerns! However, I will battle on and see how things go. Yes, the point about loops had occurred to me. The answer is quite tight. Another factor taking things in the direction of two blocks per loop is that for flexibility I would like sometimes to use two short trains, one perhaps being a loco only (or two) , or a loco and van, in a loop. I had already recognised as well , what I call techie drift, although what I usually observe is more a drift away from the subject, but your point is well made and I will have to watch out for "info overload"! More comment after I have watched videos 3&4, or after just 3, if i find that one heavy going! Paul

Michael, I have watched the first two so far. With there being over 30 of them, I think it could take a month or so to get threw them all! Even longer if I have to go back and re watch earlier ones for things I have forgotten. Unfortunately I am only going to be able to run iTrains online for quite a while as it is going to be next spring before my builder gets to do the layout updates. Maybe earlier if i can get a test oval built as per Ian's (ITG) post above. I have two worries from episode 2:- 1) There is so much info on the screen that in order to be able to see the detail, it will need a laptop, but I can't at the moment see where i can put a laptop in the operating area where i can see it and see the railway as well! I had been thinking of using something like a Lenovo Mini, but the screen will be too small. 2) The amount of data to be input seems horrific. Do I really have to in put the details of every wagon and coach I am going to use, and if I buy something new, stop and enter its details? Hopefully, things will be clearer as I get furth in to it! I will update my progress and thoughts like the two points above to this thread as I go along. Best regards Paul