Jump to content
 

Video: wires under the baseboards


jamespetts
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

Something to bear in mind with automation is the loco or train pickups need to be on the leading axles for both wheels and not offset. In that case you will need to have a resistive wheel set at the front.

Yes, this is important if you have a push-pull formation, or a DMU with a dummy power car at only one end.  You don't want to stop with the dummy car past the signal at danger.

 

However Itrain allows you to specify how far from the buffers the vehicle's first pickup is (it's covered in one of the tutorial videos), so this feature could be used as a workaround for precision stopping. 

 

In the case of an offset pickup (tender wheels on one side, loco on the other for example), the loco will be detected when an axle of both vehicles has entered on the section.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Yes, this is important if you have a push-pull formation, or a DMU with a dummy power car at only one end.  You don't want to stop with the dummy car past the signal at danger.

 

However Itrain allows you to specify how far from the buffers the vehicle's first pickup is (it's covered in one of the tutorial videos), so this feature could be used as a workaround for precision stopping. 

 

In the case of an offset pickup (tender wheels on one side, loco on the other for example), the loco will be detected when an axle of both vehicles has entered on the section.


yes your correct, traincontroller does the same. But this is reliant on accuracy and to get accurate stopping you really need a sensor for stopping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

Something to bear in mind with automation is the loco or train pickups need to be on the leading axles for both wheels and not offset. In that case you will need to have a resistive wheel set at the front.

 

Andy

 

That may be the case for TC9 however it isn't the case for iTrain which has fields to account for the loco/wagon/coach pickup offset :)

 

Iain

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

 

As to block working and staffing - that is precisely why automation is worthwhile. I have managed to make TrainController simulate the train movements on a virtual extension of my layout and get that to integrate with the actual layout using track circuit block working and an IECC like display, so it should be well within the bounds of possibility to get it to do something similar for absolute block working, although the block instruments would either need some serious modelling/electronics ability or, as I plan for the short/medium term, at least, an abstract/stylised approach, possibly involving LEDs and buttons.

 

 

No reason why you shouldn't use LEDs and buttons or switches - some panels on the prototype use that approach rather than conventional instruments.

 

It should be easy enough to drive a block instrument using something like one output of a 4018 module for Line Clear, another for Train on Line (both off for Normal) 

Over the years I have collected a few miniature block instruments that have been home made by other modellers, and of course there is always the (collectable and now expensive) Triang block.

Driving a bell is essentially the same as switching on a relay for a short period - itrain can send short pulses.

 

More difficult is recognising what bell code has been input using a tapper as you essentially have to count and measure the relative gaps between pulses.  It can be done using Strowger gear, so of course it can also be done electronically.  It's easier putting a processor and software somewhere into the design, especially as the response to a given bell code (although it's often simple repetition) should depend on the status of various other variables.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

@jamespettsNot all discussions are held on public forums and as you are not aware of private discussions that have been held you have limited information. 

 

 

 

In other words, when I asked,

 

"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."

 

The correct answer would have been to state that you do, in fact, have specific information that I do not, rather than falsely stating that I have somehow claimed "that an interface will be developed". I notice that you have now for the third time totally ignored the response to the effect that there is no possible good faith interpretation of,

 

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

 

that amounts to the statement "that an interface will be developed".

If you have information that I do not, hostility to me personally, rather than simply stating that fact plainly, is totally inappropriate and positively abusive.

 

27 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

No reason why you shouldn't use LEDs and buttons or switches - some panels on the prototype use that approach rather than conventional instruments.

 

It should be easy enough to drive a block instrument using something like one output of a 4018 module for Line Clear, another for Train on Line (both off for Normal) 

Over the years I have collected a few miniature block instruments that have been home made by other modellers, and of course there is always the (collectable and now expensive) Triang block.

Driving a bell is essentially the same as switching on a relay for a short period - itrain can send short pulses.

 

More difficult is recognising what bell code has been input using a tapper as you essentially have to count and measure the relative gaps between pulses.  It can be done using Strowger gear, so of course it can also be done electronically.  It's easier putting a processor and software somewhere into the design, especially as the response to a given bell code (although it's often simple repetition) should depend on the status of various other variables.

 

Miniature block instruments and bells connected to automation software such as TrainController would be a delight. If anyone manages to get anything like this working with automation, it would be wonderful to see a video of it in action. I know that one of the MERG members is developing a lever frame compatible with automation by having servos move the levers but also allow - in some cases - the levers to move manually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

On the 12th of November, the developer took the initiative to ask whether there is any interest in support for MERG CBUS or LCC in iTrain and which would be preferred. You were the first to reply to this suggesting that MERG people generally "do it on a cost basis" and that it would be worthwhile implementing support "if the effort is minimal". You later replied again offering to check on a UK forum about the relative merits of CBUS in comparison to other bus architectures.

 

The following day, somebody else replied suggesting that DCC++ would be more useful.

 

 

That's very interesting, I hadn't seen that but I have not really spent much time on the iTrain forum.  I ought to find time to look at that, and I rather think I ought to join the MERG Automation SIG and spend some time there too.  If the itrain developer does produce something, that will save others from re-inventing the wheel.  I appreciate that he needs an idea of whether it will be worth the investment of his effort but I'm not in a position to help him evaluate either the demand or the size of the job.

 

The current version of iTrain is quite recent so I expect any major release is a good way off, but the website talks about pricing policy should there be another major release in the future, which I take as a hint that there's more to come.  I must say I was wondering what enhancements one might wish to make to the product and was hard put to come up with much more than support for any new command stations etc, further interfaces like Cbus, maybe a few tweaks to make things even more user  friendly.  Maybe there are big ideas in DCC yet to come from the manufacturers and he will have to support them - I doubt that the founders of DCC would have anticipated  what it can now do 

 

As a former MERG Treasurer, I would comment that the most active members who design circuits (maybe less than 1% of MERG membership) seem primarily interested in the electronics rather more than their railways, perhaps even more so than what practical use their circuit is to other modellers - they are often meeting some very specific technical requirement of their own, and yes they do put a lot of effort into doing things cost-effectively and this certainly shows in the choice of components used in the kits.  The Journal often describes competing circuit designs or ideas from different people (not necessarily resulting in kits) with similar functionality - a lot of train detection devices for example.  Whilst this individualist approach may appear to non-members to be a lack of joined up thinking, Cbus is one area where different ideas do get pulled together and made compatible.  I suspect the other 99% of the MERG membership just want to use the kits and the ideas of those whose electronic knowledge is way above our own.

 

My gut instinct is that CBus support ought to be worth implementing, ought not to be too difficult to develop BUT I really haven't looked at it, so there could well be some major issue that I haven't thought of especially as others with more knowledge than me have considered it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, WIMorrison said:

 

Andy

 

That may be the case for TC9 however it isn't the case for iTrain which has fields to account for the loco/wagon/coach pickup offset :)

 

Iain

 

TC9 has the same functionality in that you can specify a "contact spot" for both forward and reverse. But take care with it: I bought a Hornby M7 + 2-coach push-pull set, and simply set the contact spot for reverse running at 21 inches. However, when entering a block in reverse it means TC does not see the train until it's 21 inches in, and if you're entering a short branch platform it can result in a fairly abrupt stop! I subsequently fitted two resistor wheelsets on the end bogie.

 

Another recommendation is that whenever you clean the loco's wheels, clean the resistor wheels too. They do seem to get dirty as they're being used for pickup.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

In the case of an offset pickup (tender wheels on one side, loco on the other for example), the loco will be detected when an axle of both vehicles has entered on the section.

 

This may or not be the case and I would do some checking. For example, on my layout the inner rail is used for monitoring and only that rail has IRJs. If an engine with offset pickups enters the block, and its pickup wheels are for the monitored rail, then it should be detected immediately. However, if its pickup wheels are for the unmonitored block it will not be detected until the tender enters. Same should apply to a DMU unpowered trailer that has offset pickups for lighting.   May not be the case if both rails are monitored and have IRJs. 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

 I know that one of the MERG members is developing a lever frame compatible with automation by having servos move the levers but also allow - in some cases - the levers to move manually.

Ooooh!  Reminds of the LT frames I used to see being worked by a ghost signalman!

 

A lever is just a switch made of cast iron, but the problem with modelling lever frames is that you shouldn't be able to move any lever when that operation logically isn't allowed.  Mechanical locking stops you from doing so, and to get the right "feel" you have to provide electrical locking instead (logic plus a solenoid lock on every lever).  It's easier to use simple switches and simply ignore any change which isn't permitted and probably sound an audible alarm instead, but that just doesn't have the feel of a lever frame.

 

I'd be interested to learn how one overrides a servo linkage to work a lever manually and still have the effect of working locking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Ooooh!  Reminds of the LT frames I used to see being worked by a ghost signalman!

 

A lever is just a switch made of cast iron, but the problem with modelling lever frames is that you shouldn't be able to move any lever when that operation logically isn't allowed.  Mechanical locking stops you from doing so, and to get the right "feel" you have to provide electrical locking instead (logic plus a solenoid lock on every lever).  It's easier to use simple switches and simply ignore any change which isn't permitted and probably sound an audible alarm instead, but that just doesn't have the feel of a lever frame.

 

I'd be interested to learn how one overrides a servo linkage to work a lever manually and still have the effect of working locking.

 

There is a very interesting mechanical system for this involving servos, but I cannot recall the details now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears there maybe some confusion where I said offset, I was not referring to the contact spot in TC but where the actual pickups on a train is. That the front bogie picks up on the left and the rear bogie picks up from the right. So the result of this is either I-Train or Traincontroller will not know the actual true position of the front of the train, the contact point feature in TC does not overcome this, so accurate stopping is not possible with the pickups on the train are off set. A resistor on the front bogie overcomes this.

Edited by Andymsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andymsa said:

It appears there maybe some confusion where I said offset, I was not referring to the contact spot in TC but where the actual pickups on a train is. That the front bogie picks up on the left and the rear bogie picks up from the right. So the result of this is either I-Train or Traincontroller will not know the actual true position of the front of the train, the contact point feature in TC does not overcome this, so accurate stopping is not possible with the pickups on the train are off set. A resistor on the front bogie overcomes this.

 

Ahh, yes, that is a different thing. I can see how that might cause indeterminacy - I have some locomotives from OO Works for the planned 00 gauge layout that have pickups like this, so will need to think about dealing with this, either by adding more pickups or putting resistance wheelsets on the leading and trailing axles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RFS said:

 

TC9 has the same functionality in that you can specify a "contact spot" for both forward and reverse. But take care with it: I bought a Hornby M7 + 2-coach push-pull set, and simply set the contact spot for reverse running at 21 inches. However, when entering a block in reverse it means TC does not see the train until it's 21 inches in, and if you're entering a short branch platform it can result in a fairly abrupt stop! I subsequently fitted two resistor wheelsets on the end bogie.

 

Another recommendation is that whenever you clean the loco's wheels, clean the resistor wheels too. They do seem to get dirty as they're being used for pickup.

 

 

This may or not be the case and I would do some checking. For example, on my layout the inner rail is used for monitoring and only that rail has IRJs. If an engine with offset pickups enters the block, and its pickup wheels are for the monitored rail, then it should be detected immediately. However, if its pickup wheels are for the unmonitored block it will not be detected until the tender enters. Same should apply to a DMU unpowered trailer that has offset pickups for lighting.   May not be the case if both rails are monitored and have IRJs. 

 


im interested why you set the contact spot at 21 inches and not to buffer to wheel distance on the driving trailer and tick the box that states rear of train has a control car / driving trailer.

 

having re read your post I now understand, fitting the resistors was the right way to go.

Edited by Andymsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 hours ago, Andymsa said:


im interested why you set the contact spot at 21 inches and not to buffer to wheel distance on the driving trailer and tick the box that states rear of train has a control car / driving trailer.

 

having re read your post I now understand, fitting the resistors was the right way to go.

 

For absolute accuracy you need to set contact spots for all locos. For example, a Bachmann Standard 5 4-6-0 has pickups only on the 3 driving wheel axles. So the contact spot forwards is set to 2 inches, and reverse to about 5 although I don't often run it tender first. On the other hand, the Hornby Schools 4-4-0 has pickups on both the front bogie and the tender, so contact spot is 0 in both directions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

James, I’m a newbie to automatic control and I’ve started a large layout that will need to be automatically controlled.  Could you list all the modules you’re using, what they’re doing and what interfaces them to your system.  

 

Thanks Richard 

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Penrhos1920 said:

James, I’m a newbie to automatic control and I’ve started a large layout that will need to be automatically controlled.  Could you list all the modules you’re using, what they’re doing and what interfaces them to your system.  

 

Thanks Richard 

 

 

* Including powering and controlling colour light signals, receiving point positional indication feedback and uncoupler position feedback and, in the future, controlling relays for yard/station/town lighting.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

just revisited the underbase board video, my initial thought was a positive one and can see what has been tried to be achieved. But I now am thinking this amount of wiring is just making things hard. I do automation and have now where the amount of stuff needed for it, has this been over thought Or storing up issues for the future. The amount of wiring so far is just for track and that’s before other wiring has been installed lighting ect.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Andymsa said:

just revisited the underbase board video, my initial thought was a positive one and can see what has been tried to be achieved. But I now am thinking this amount of wiring is just making things hard. I do automation and have now where the amount of stuff needed for it, has this been over thought Or storing up issues for the future. The amount of wiring so far is just for track and that’s before other wiring has been installed lighting ect.

 

I am not sure that I entirely follow - the wiring is there in order to perform a function. Whether that function is worth the work involved in building and maintaining it is a matter of individual preference.

 

What specific functions would you remove in order to reduce the amount of wires by what amount?

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

 

I am not sure that I entirely follow - the wiring is there in order to perform a function. Whether that function is worth the work involved in building and maintaining it is a matter of individual preference.

 

What specific functions would you remove in order to reduce the amount of wires by what amount?


yes it’s individual preference as you rightly say.

 

here is a photo of a similar area of my layout to your quad
 

this was the first area I wired up, I have followed the same convention throughout. All wires are colour coded and labeled where needed, all wiring is documented. The basic function is track occupancy and point/signal control nothing more or less. On your layout there seems to be a lot of other items involved in the transmission process that’s just icing on the cake. In other words more to go wrong and fault find if problems occur due to more wiring connections and the vast amount of wiring will be time consuming to trace. One item I would remove would be the short circuit shutdown hardware as this was something I thought about, in the end I concluded I don’t want any trains running until an issue is cleared.

 

 

AFA6F93E-F54E-49B7-A90C-819F7EE65A77.jpeg

Edited by Andymsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks lovely and neat. How much track is there on top of these baseboards? The more track, the more wiring necessary. In N gauge, of course, there is room for more density in any given area.

 

Quote


On your layout there seems to be a lot of other items involved in the transmission process that’s just icing on the cake

 

Can you elaborate on this? I am not sure that I understand to what you are referring. Which colour/types of wires do you mean here?

Edited by jamespetts
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

That looks lovely and neat. How much track is there on top of these baseboards? The more track, the more wiring necessary. In N gauge, of course, there is room for more density in any given area.

 

 

Can you elaborate on this? I am not sure that I understand to what you are referring. Which colour/types of wires do you mean here?


thank you for the comment on neatness, density of track above shouldn’t be an issue when adding the detector boards, I can have 3 or 4 boards in a given area..

 

for instance your short circuit shut down boards, are these boards really necessary, I did think about doing the same myself but concluded it was not needed. Sending a visual alarm to TC was already done by default because in a short circuit situation TC will show this by default because the detection boards themselves all go occupied in the affect board area.

 

as to colour codes each track feed from the detector to the track has a completely different colour (see pic) the same applies to accessory wires. The bus wires are labelled only and some other wires aswell

Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Andymsa said:


thank you for the comment on neatness, density of track above shouldn’t be an issue when adding the detector boards, I can have 3 or 4 boards in a given area..

 

for instance your short circuit shut down boards, are these boards really necessary, I did think about doing the same myself but concluded it was not needed. Sending a visual alarm to TC was already done by default because in a short circuit situation TC will show this by default because the detection boards themselves all go occupied in the affect board area.

 

as to colour codes each track feed from the detector to the track has a completely different colour (see pic) the same applies to accessory wires. The bus wires are labelled only and some other wires aswell

 

The amount of track will affect the number of wires as each occupancy section must have its own pair of droppers going to the occupancy detector. The more track that one has in any given area, the more sections that there are in that area, and thus the more wires that there will be. The smaller the scale and gauge, the more track that will fit into a given area for any given track layout normalised as to scale, and thus, all other things being equal, the smaller the scale, the greater the number of dropper wire pairs in any given area of baseboard that one will have. Certainly, there are not enough wire colours for all the sections on this layout.

 

The District Cut-Outs are not completely necessary in the sense that the model railway can run without them, but it does make it an awful lot easier to know approximately whereabouts that a short circuit is and for that short circuit to affect only part of the layout rather than all of it. Also, these add relatively little to the amount of wires.

 

Of course, the whole wiring could be simplified drastically without occupancy detection - but then there would be no automation. As previously written, it is a matter of balancing function with the additional work involved - just like the extra work in things like weathering and detailing models or any other sort of modelling.

  • Agree 1
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...