Jump to content
 

Video: wires under the baseboards


jamespetts
 Share

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, RFS said:

 

It really depends on how far you want to go - the law of diminishing returns applies here. I have so far fitted resistor wheel sets just on the last vehicle of every train. This does protect against coupling failures, but obviously not if a train divides on a turnout without leaving the last vehicle in the preceding block. Reliable couplings are a must! 

 

 


nothing goes on the layout without being able to be detected. All stock has either lighting or resistor wheel sets. I tend to do them in batches when I not got enough time to start other projects

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting this very useful thread James.  I am in the process of setting up a OO layout using Z21 and intending to buy iTrain (I am currently using the 2-month trial licence, which I recommend to anybody considering automation).  I am really most impressed by this software and although it is complex with a very big learning curve, the videos by BlasterBob & Iain Morrison are extremely helpful in that they explain the functionality in such a way that they tackle first things first and so you can leave the complexities and niceties until you are ready for them.

 

I am pleased to see you are happily using the 408LN/CS combination, and MERG cut-out for power districts which I also intend to use but not necessarily exclusively.  I have considered Railcom, but whilst I understand its advantages I also see a large price tag in the form of railcom decoders when iTrain can keep track of what's where - after I've told it once.  I haven't decided what decoder to standardise on, but haven't enough experience of DCC yet and have so far not had any trouble with the cheap Lais ones which seem to attract such poor reviews.  Other brands cost double even before I start insisting on railcom.    And I am certainly not going to fit a big fleet of locos with sound !

 

I also particularly like the MERG DTC08/DTC02 occupancy modules, although they are not directly compatible with Z21.  The DTC08 design is now quite long in the tooth, having originally been developed by a MERG member to be used as part of a protocol called RPC which predated the MERG CBUS, using RS232/485 as used in serial ports.  I use mainly solenoid point motors and find the 4018 modules up to the job and cost effective, but I also like the MERG CDUs

 

The basic problem with systems like CBUS (and for that matter RPC, and PTP - yet another protocol designed by a MERG member) is that they are conceived primarily as a means of wiring the gubbins on baseboard(s) to switches/displays on conventional control panel(s).  This suits many modellers just fine, but these devices are much less convenient if you want to drive it all by software like TC or iTrain.  Perhaps this is partly what is behind a finding in this month's MERG journal that feedback from member renewals indicated that a third of the membership thought the range of kits was too focussed on CBUS. 

I don't really fancy trying to interface the MERG kits to iTrain via CBUS + JMRI - it's too inelegant an approach, so I am intrigued by your suggestion that iTrain might one day support CBUS and I hope you're right.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael - RailCom decoders are not necessarily very expensive; the basic Zimo decoders (e.g. the 6 pin MX617) cost £20 and come with RailCom as standard. Nonetheless, it is not an essential feature; you just need to do manual data entry every time that you put a train on the track if you do not use RailCom.

 

It is right that it would be unwise to plan on the assumption that iTrain will be able to interface with MERG CBUS, as this has not been confirmed, but I do not understand why Iain Morrison states with such certainty that it is a false rumour; do you have definite information on this that I do not? If so, it would be very interesting to know the details. If not, then it seems misleading to describe it as "false" rather than merely stating that it is uncertain.

Edited by jamespetts
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jamespetts said:

 

Interesting. I shall have to consider that for my next layout. However, occupancy sensors for turnouts do enable a nice display of the train moving along the layout in the signalling display of TrainController.

 

I should note that I do plan to fit carriage lighting, so the resistance wheelsets will mostly not be an issue.

 

On the real thing what they call "Track locking" is rather important for safety.  Track circuits ensure you can't move a point whilst there's something standing on it.  I find it goes against the grain that points are not detected although I know Itrain handles that requirement by inference from what left one block and did/didn't arrive on the next, and we aren't as safety critical as the big railway, which is why modellers don't see it as essential to have feedback to prove a point is set and locked in the correct position.  Before the track circuit was invented of course, they relied on mechanical locking bars and the signalman using the Mk 1 human eyeball.  If you want to display pointwork occupancy on an illuminated track diagram, it might be a use for something like the MERG Train on Track Indicators without necessarily being reported to your control software.

 

Carriage lighting is OK for coaching stock, but goods wagons don't usually have lights.  Do you intend to fit working tail lamps to brake vans?  With iTrain if you have function-only chips in vans you could even display the correct lamps depending on whehther you are on a fast or slow line, and I wold assume you also do that in TC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

On the real thing what they call "Track locking" is rather important for safety.  Track circuits ensure you can't move a point whilst there's something standing on it.  I find it goes against the grain that points are not detected although I know Itrain handles that requirement by inference from what left one block and did/didn't arrive on the next, and we aren't as safety critical as the big railway, which is why modellers don't see it as essential to have feedback to prove a point is set and locked in the correct position.  Before the track circuit was invented of course, they relied on mechanical locking bars and the signalman using the Mk 1 human eyeball.  If you want to display pointwork occupancy on an illuminated track diagram, it might be a use for something like the MERG Train on Track Indicators without necessarily being reported to your control software.

 

Carriage lighting is OK for coaching stock, but goods wagons don't usually have lights.  Do you intend to fit working tail lamps to brake vans?  With iTrain if you have function-only chips in vans you could even display the correct lamps depending on whehther you are on a fast or slow line, and I wold assume you also do that in TC.

 

My own layout is set after the era of brake vans - but I do plan eventually to fit tail lights to rear wagons. I may have to add resistive wheelsets in the interim, however, as fitting carriage/tail lights can be quite time consuming and I may well wish to run the layout before I have finished this task.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

It is right that it would be unwise to plan on the assumption that iTrain will be able to interface with MERG CBUS, as this has not been confirmed, but I do not understand why Iain Morrison states with such certainty that it is a false rumour; do you have definite information on this that I do not? If so, it would be very interesting to know the details. If not, then it seems misleading to describe it as "false" rather than merely stating that it is uncertain.

 

Unfortunately I suspect he is right in thinking it is "vapourware".  I'm sure it can be done - but I don't know how difficult it would be.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, jamespetts said:

 

My own layout is set after the era of brake vans - but I do plan eventually to fit tail lights to rear wagons. I may have to add resistive wheelsets in the interim, however, as fitting carriage/tail lights can be quite time consuming and I may well wish to run the layout before I have finished this task.

I will be using brake vans, but essentially it's me too - the same consideration applies to parcels traffic, and of course you should never show a tail lamp in the middle of the train as too many modern layouts now do - the one on the back of the loco being a case in point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I will be using brake vans, but essentially it's me too - the same consideration applies to parcels traffic, and of course you should never show a tail lamp in the middle of the train as too many modern layouts now do - the one on the back of the loco being a case in point.

 

Indeed - the tail lamps will all be set to be DCC controllable so that they will only illuminate when at the rear of the train, and the locomotives have been/will be (only some are complete) re-wired so as to allow independent control of the front and rear lights.

 

Unfortunately, for obvious reasons, it is not possible physically to remove the tail lights when not at the rear of a train, so one will have to make do with them being present but dark, which is the best that can be done for rakes that can be hauled in either direction without human intervention.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RFS said:

 

It really depends on how far you want to go - the law of diminishing returns applies here. I have so far fitted resistor wheel sets just on the last vehicle of every train. This does protect against coupling failures, but obviously not if a train divides on a turnout without leaving the last vehicle in the preceding block. Reliable couplings are a must! 

 

 

 

Reliable couplings are important anyway on an automated layout.  Otherwise you spend all your time re-uniting divided trains, including rerailing after a runaway has caused an accident.

 

The layout size limitation on how many trains you can run per operator on a conventional layout depends on how many simultaneous movements the human mind can cope with competently.  On a fully automated layout, the limit becomes how much fire-fighting of such problems you have to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

 

Indeed - the tail lamps will all be set to be DCC controllable so that they will only illuminate when at the rear of the train, and the locomotives have been/will be (only some are complete) re-wired so as to allow independent control of the front and rear lights.

 

Unfortunately, for obvious reasons, it is not possible physically to remove the tail lights when not at the rear of a train, so one will have to make do with them being present but dark, which is the best that can be done for rakes that can be hauled in either direction without human intervention.

You are obviously thinking like me in terms of fixed rakes, at least as regards passenger workings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Reliable couplings are important anyway on an automated layout.  Otherwise you spend all your time re-uniting divided trains, including rerailing after a runaway has caused an accident.

 

The layout size limitation on how many trains you can run per operator on a conventional layout depends on how many simultaneous movements the human mind can cope with competently.  On a fully automated layout, the limit becomes how much fire-fighting of such problems you have to do.


the other day I had a good runaway where a 25 wagon freight train split its couplings and went backwards down a 6 level helix. But more impressive was it did not derail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of occupancy detection for turnouts, incidentally, one of the matters that influenced my decision to install them on this layout is that I am trying to make the representation of the signalling system as realistic, within the bounds of my resources and skill level, as the trains themselves. In reality, in the 1980s, switches and crossings would be fully track circuited and the occupancy of switches and crossings would be shown on the signaller's display and would in fact control whether points can be changed or routes set. (Also, do not forget that it is possible that a train under manual control in the yards might well end up on a turnout which the automation wishes to use in a route; trying to move a delicate, code 40 hand built turnout under a locomotive might possibly cause significant damage).

 

This is similar to part of the reason to use point position indication: in reality, a points failure would be detectable by the signalling system in this era, and an error message would be given. I have gone so far as using the sound file from SimSig for this error message in my computer as the sound played when a points failure is detected for this reason.

 

The next layout that I am planning, an 00 gauge layout set in the 1930s that will occupy the space above this layout, will instead seek to replicate, so far as it can be done within my skill level and resources, mechanical absolute block signalling, so it may be sensible on that layout to omit these features, which did not exist (or, at least, were not widely deployed) in the 1930s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andymsa said:


the other day I had a good runaway where a 25 wagon freight train split its couplings and went backwards down a 6 level helix. But more impressive was it did not derail.

Best runaway I've ever seen was years ago on a fully signalled  3-rail O gauge layout (track circuits worked by using axles to short out the two running rails, though they only displayed lights on signal box diagram). 

 

Operator at the branch terminus was shunting one wagon on the downhill side of loco, contrary to Rules & regulations, and the wagon uncoupled and ran away.  So he sent the correct single line emergency bell signal 2-5-5 Train or vehicles running away.  Operator at the bottom of the hill (when he had recovered from saying You What?) took the correct decision to divert the runaway into his bay platform to avoid collision with local passenger train waiting in the loop.  Unfortunately he was about half a second too slow in acting and he also pulled the lever for the wrong points.  Wagon had already passed both points and its sprung buffers collided with the sprung buffers of loco standing in the branch loop, so it energetically bounced back off towards the crossover which was now set to divert it onto the Down Main line - also downhill!  So he now sent the emergency signal 4-5-5  Train or Vehicles Running Away in the right direction to a third operator at the next box on the Main LIne where it coasted to a stand in his Down Fast platform!

 

It would be difficult to recreate if we tried!

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Reliable couplings are important anyway on an automated layout.  Otherwise you spend all your time re-uniting divided trains, including rerailing after a runaway has caused an accident.

 

The layout size limitation on how many trains you can run per operator on a conventional layout depends on how many simultaneous movements the human mind can cope with competently.  On a fully automated layout, the limit becomes how much fire-fighting of such problems you have to do.

 

Automation will very quickly expose any shortcomings in your hardware, so if you find that, having automated your layout, you're having to do a lot of firefighting, then you have some problems to resolve. From experience I had to make some changes to get the layout reliable, for example -

 

- solenoid point motors (Seep, Peco) all replaced by Tortoise - the most reliable motor available

- all turnouts electrofrog with polarity switching from the Tortoises

- decoders all replaced by Lenz mostly, plus some Zimo. Back EMF is the most important feature for accurate stopping etc.

 

I can now entertain the grandchildren (and when they are not visiting just myself) without having to worry about failures. They do occur, of course, but infrequently now. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jamespetts said:

It is right that it would be unwise to plan on the assumption that iTrain will be able to interface with MERG CBUS, as this has not been confirmed, but I do not understand why Iain Morrison states with such certainty that it is a false rumour; do you have definite information on this that I do not? If so, it would be very interesting to know the details. If not, then it seems misleading to describe it as "false" rather than merely stating that it is uncertain.

 

I am not misleading anyone, it is you who is misleading readers by stating that an interface will be developed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

 

I am not misleading anyone, it is you who is misleading readers by stating that an interface will be developed.

 

I wrote, "There has been some suggestion recently that iTrain might one day support CBUS, but I am not sure how accurate that this information is."

 

Can you explain how you can possibly conclude in good faith that this is in any way misleading, or how you can possibly conclude in good faith that this amounts to a statement that "an interface will be developed"?

Edited by jamespetts
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

The next layout that I am planning, an 00 gauge layout set in the 1930s that will occupy the space above this layout, will instead seek to replicate, so far as it can be done within my skill level and resources, mechanical absolute block signalling, so it may be sensible on that layout to omit these features, which did not exist (or, at least, were not widely deployed) in the 1930s.

 

Future layouts?  I've got to get the current one wired first!!

 

If you include a helix like Andy's, you'd best include working catch points and sand drags which were much more common in the 1930s!   I can see me needing a couple of helices. 

 

The modeller's problem with Block working is the same as BR's - manning.  You need another operator to send signals to and who will reply appropriately.  Somewhere I may still have some simulator software that talks to a full size block instrument and can respond  with the correct bell signals and block indications.  It was written in Qbasic and ran on an old 286 PC, and later I wrote something similar to run on a PIC (even including permissive block).  I think I could probably replicate full block working in iTrain, but that will be some years away.  Single needle telegraph instruments as used here on the GNR lines until the 1970s could similarly be simulated.  The latest of Bob & Iain's series of iTrain videos points towards certain features I would envisage using - but their series is evidently not yet finished, so maybe they've beaten me to it !

 

My ideal layout (if I were to live that long) would be one which has several signal boxes and capable of running fully automatically but with the ability as required to switch any or as many of the signal boxes as desired to manual operation with full block working to adjacent boxes which if not so opened and manned would be capable of simulating the correct block responses.  Clear an appropriate signal and locos/trains would spontaneously move accordingly without needing an operator to drive them - unlike most modellers, I don't want to be a train driver.  As I see it, itrain appears capable of doing this and I would expect that TC can also do it.  The biggest practical limitation I foresee is coupling unreliability, difficulties with uncouplers etc - so I don't envisage that ever being feasible for me other than on the basis of all shunting remaining manual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

 

I wrote, "There has been some suggestion recently that iTrain might one day support CBUS, but I am not sure how accurate that this information is."

 

Can you explain how you can possibly conclude in good faith that this is in any way misleading, or how you can possibly conclude in good faith that this amounts to a statement that "an interface will be developed"?

 

You started the rumour with you statement, not me, I am merely putting an end to the rumour because your suggestion 'that iTrain might one day support CBUS' is incorrect and providing the accuracy that you desire. Similarly you said that the DR4088xx was not RailCom compliant which was an inaccurate statement - it is fully RailCom compliant.

 

These fora are read by people looking for information and it is imperative that the information contained in the posts is correct and accurate, you have made 2 incorrect assertions and I have corrected them for the benefit of others reading who wish to know the real facts, not your assertions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had been thinking what my approach would be to train operations on my new layout. I have about 25 coaches in all of which 10 are lit pullmans (Hornby, R44xx),  all of which were divided up into 5/6 coach rakes depending on platform length. I will have the same train length on the new layout and I can't see much reason why I would want to play with the train composition. In which case, what is the most straightforward way of organising a rake that will be left connected? Would you simply put a resistor (or rear light) on the last coach? I know the Pullmans are a special case.

 

Eventually I would need more coaches as the layout will be capable of having more trains in motion than the 4 I manged on the old DC layout. Given the era (1960) what would anyone suggest as a policy for buying coaches to be easily compatible. I am thinking for a iTrain controlled layout, what 'Ready to run' really means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I had been thinking what my approach would be to train operations on my new layout. I have about 25 coaches in all of which 10 are lit pullmans (Hornby, R44xx),  all of which were divided up into 5/6 coach rakes depending on platform length. I will have the same train length on the new layout and I can't see much reason why I would want to play with the train composition. In which case, what is the most straightforward way of organising a rake that will be left connected? Would you simply put a resistor (or rear light) on the last coach? I know the Pullmans are a special case.

 

 

If you've got a lit coach drawing its power from the rails you don't need resistive axles.  The current drawn by the lights will do.

 

If you use battery-powered lights - various modules on ebay - those of course aren't detected.

Likewise, if you use detectors other than current based (eg infra red beams, reed switches etc) then the resistive axle won't help anyway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...