Newbie Question - DCC/Computer Control

[Wordsmith]

A newbie question…

 

Some background – I’m under four years off retirement and wanted to take up railway modelling as a hobby again when I do retire. I last did it as a spotty teenage fifty odd years ago, so I’m well out of touch. I’m planning to model in N gauge as I can get a reasonable layout into a 12 ft x 3 ft space.

 

I started buying £50 or £75 a month of track, rolling stock and so on at the start of the year and have built a 4 ft x 2 ft baseboard for test purposes. I quite enjoyed building the actual layout in the dim and distant, so don’t think that will have changed. But manually running the layout doesn’t appeal – I like the idea of computer control for the bulk of it with a fiddle yard along the back of the layout and (if possible) trains starting/running/stopping under DCC/computer control.

The intent of the test baseboard is to put in a simple oval of track with a passing loop, head shunt and a couple of sidings to find out how DCC/computer control works.

 

I was originally going to buy a Gaugemaster Prodigy "Advance 2" starter DCC controller package but that’s been out of stock for months – a quick scan of the form suggests supply problems in China. So, if I was going to buy a DCC controller and computer program that would let me both experiment and then eventually run a full-size layout, what would people recommend?

 

[Links to pertinent threads are fine if people don’t want to (re)answer what might be an oft answered question].

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Wordsmith

[Ron Ron Ron]

Hi and welcome Wordsmith.

 

The Prodigy advanced Squared might be a less than optimum choice if you're looking at computer control.

There are various alternative DCC systems that might fit the bill and several software packages for the computer control side of things.

 

A key question is how much do you want to spend?

Suitable DCC systems can cost between £100 and £1000 plus.

Software packages range from FREE to several hundred £££'s

Then there's the cost of additional track detection accessories to feedback data into the computer software.

 

Cheers

Ron

 

 

 

.

[Nigelcliffe]

38 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Hi and welcome Wordsmith.

 

The Prodigy advanced Squared might be a less than optimum choice if you're looking at computer control.

There are various alternative DCC systems that might fit the bill and several software packages for the computer control side of things.

 

.

 

I'd phrase it stronger - of the regularly available in the UK control systems, the Prodigy is one of the worst option *if* your goal is computer control.  (NB, note my *if*.   The Prodigy may be fine for human control. ).

 

RonRonRon's other comments are all fine - work out the type of automation wanted, and the software (or hardware) needed.  Then go from there.  Buying the control system before thinking about the software can be an expensive mistake.

 

 

- Nigel 

[john new]

If the intention is just automated sequencing do you need the expense of DCC and hassle of chipping N gauge locos? There are several automation gizmos advertised for DC too. As others have said research exactly what you want the layout to do, and all the options for doing it before purchase. 

[WIMorrison]

@Wordsmith

 

The question you pose is almost as open a question as can possibly be asked and could result in as many recommendations as there are options on the market. There are several considerations that you could make that might limit the choices available and help in recommending a system to buy into.

 

Considerations are

 

1. Do you want to connect from the computer to the layout via USB or wired LAN or WiFi?  There are many that support USB through add-ons, there are fewer that support LAN and fewer that support Wi-Fi.
2. What control protocol do you wish to use?  LocoNet has the best range of products available, but RS Bus, RBus, Xpressnet, CBus, Canbus, S88 are all options and there are very few systems that support multiple protocols
3. Would you like to use walk-about Wi-Fi controllers? There are very few systems that support the use of Wi-Fi controllers. The Wi-Fi controllers can either be dedicated units or software installed on your phone - or even both.
4.  Do you want to have Railcom for automatic loco identification on your automation program?  Often dismissed by people not familiar with the benefits of Railcom on an automated layout I would consider this as a must for any new layout. 
5. What is your level of expertise in building electronic kits?  If you are confident then there are some available kits that will reduce the costs but increase the complexity and range if options available.
6. Commercial or Open-source automation?  Many will immediately say Open-source in the belief that this is free and reduce the costs. There are 2 major commercial packages available with one less than 50% the cost of the other yet providing all the features of the other. Commercial has the usual advantages in integration and look and feel.
7. Your desire to build now and consider automating later, or design for automation properly and build later?  this is very important as  building then later automating is fraught with difficulties and frustration. The best advice is to design for automation now, simulate in your chosen package to iron out issues, then build and automate at the same time.
8. What level of flexibility and future expansion do you want?  This is important as some systems will offer what you need to start, but are difficult and/or expensive to upgrade from. Others whilst more expensive at the start will last a lifetime and support any size of system.

 

I have used both approaches in question 7, and am presently helping automate an existing exhibition quality layout and this has taken almost a year already and it is nowhere near complete. Conversely, I recently assisted in the electronic paper development of a large new layout that was being designed expressly to automate and that was completed in 3 months and it operated correctly when first switched on. I suggest strongly that there is a lesson here.

 

This list isn't complete but I think it does bring out some major issues that need to be considered before you can decide on what to buy, it is a very important decision and I personally think that there are only 2 options, for both hardware and software that could be as cheap as around £350 for software and command station up to £1000 for another option with my preferred option sitting at around £450. 

 

I have deliberately not specified a specific system at this stage, but consideration of the above will enable the correct and informed decision to be made, once and once only.

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by WIMorrison
appalling spelling, and just as bad grammar!

[Andymsa]

3 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

@Wordsmith

 

The question you pose is almost as open a question as can possibly be asked and could result in as many recommendations as there are options on the market. There are several considerations that you could make that might limit the choices available and help in recommending a system to buy into.

 

Considerations are

 

1. Do you want to connect from the computer to the layout via USB or wired LAN or WiFi?  There are many that support USB through add-ons, there are fewer that support LAN and fewer that support Wi-Fi.
2. What control protocol do you wish to use?  LocoNet has the best range of products available, but RS Bus, RBus, Xpressnet, CBus, Canbus, S88 are all options and there are very few systems that support multiple protocols
3. Would you like to use walk-about Wi-Fi controllers? There are very few systems that support the use of Wi-Fi controllers. The Wi-Fi controllers can either be dedicated units or software installed on your phone - or even both.
4.  Do you want to have Railcom for automatic loco identification on your automation program?  Often dismissed by people not familiar with the benefits of Railcom on an automated layout I would consider this as a must for any new layout. 
5. What is your level of expertise in building electronic kits?  If you are confident then there are some available kits that will reduce the costs but increase the complexity and range if options available.
6. Commercial or Open-source automation?  Many will immediately say Open-source in the belief that this is free and reduce the costs. There are 2 major commercial packages available with one less than 50% the cost of the other yet providing all the features of the other. Commercial has the usual advantages in integration and look and feel.
7. Your desire to build now and consider automating later, or design for automation properly and build later?  this is very important as  building then later automating is fraught with difficulties and frustration. The best advice is to design for automation now, simulate in your chosen package to iron out issues, then build and automate at the same time.
8. What level of flexibility and future expansion do you want?  This is important as some systems will offer what you need to start, but are difficult and/or expensive to upgrade from. Others whilst more expensive at the start will last a lifetime and support any size of system.

 

I have used both approaches in question 7, and am presently helping automate an existing exhibition quality layout and this has taken almost a year already and it is nowhere near complete. Conversely, I recently assisted in the electronic paper development of a large new layout that was being designed expressly to automate and that was completed in 3 months and it operated correctly when first switched on. I suggest strongly that there is a lesson here.

 

This list isn't complete but I think it does bring out some major issues that need to be considered before you can decide on what to buy, it is a very important decision and I personally think that there are only 2 options, for both hardware and software that could be as cheap as around £350 for software and command station up to £1000 for another option with my preferred option sitting at around £450. 

 

I have deliberately not specified a specific system at this stage, but consideration of the above will enable the correct and informed decision to be made, once and once only.

 

 

I agree with the points raised and very well put, but point 6 is in error, although the cost difference is correct the two programs don't have the same features. I'm not going to go into details as it would be too confusing and I don't want you to get confused with people's opinions on what's the best. My suggestion if you do go with either of the two programs is to download both and see how you get on with both, there are a some good videos on both on youtube. But either program will be a good choice over anything else you can get.

[RAF96]

I would agree that if your goal is pc driven automation, then choose the software by dint of trial downloads where possible then add in your favoured DCC kit as supported by the software.

 

I realise its maybe cart before the horse but sometimes thats the only choice in the long run. Remember you only want to buy once.

Edited August 19, 2019 by RAF96

[Wordsmith]

14 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

@Wordsmith

 

The question you pose is almost as open a question as can possibly be asked and could result in as many recommendations as there are options on the market. There are several considerations that you could make that might limit the choices available and help in recommending a system to buy into.

 

Thanks for the detailed answer - replies below.

14 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

 

Considerations are

1. Do you want to connect from the computer to the layout via USB or wired LAN or WiFi?  There are many that support USB through add-ons, there are fewer that support LAN and fewer that support Wi-Fi.

Almost certainly USB/wired LAN. 

1. What control protocol do you wish to use?  LocoNet has the best range of products available, but RS Bus, RBus, Xpressnet, CBus, Canbus, S88 are all options and there are very few systems that support multiple protocols

 Looks like I've got some reading to do. I thought most controllers were broadly compatible with each other. 

1. Would you like to use walk-about Wi-Fi controllers? There are very few systems that support the use of Wi-Fi controllers. The Wi-Fi controllers can either be dedicated units or software installed on your phone - or even both.

 No, I'd be happy with one (or at the most two) hand held controllers. The aim is to build a double tracked oval circuit with a station and fiddle yard. Assorted computer controlled passenger and goods trains can run round the  oval with manual shunting around the station. If it's possible to computer control the shunting as well, I'd probably do that -  but automated shunting may be a bit of an ask.

1.  Do you want to have Railcom for automatic loco identification on your automation program?  Often dismissed by people not familiar with the benefits of Railcom on an automated layout I would consider this as a must for any new layout. 

More reading required.   :o(

1. What is your level of expertise in building electronic kits?  If you are confident then there are some available kits that will reduce the costs but increase the complexity and range if options available.

Basic - I can solder and I know the basics of electronics. But i'd probably be better with 'off the shelf' to start with.

1. Commercial or Open-source automation?  Many will immediately say Open-source in the belief that this is free and reduce the costs. There are 2 major commercial packages available with one less than 50% the cost of the other yet providing all the features of the other. Commercial has the usual advantages in integration and look and feel.

Depends on the O/S for the open source material. If it's Linux (Ubuntu) I might take a look. (I'm Linux literate, but my scripting skills are poor).

1. Your desire to build now and consider automating later, or design for automation properly and build later?  this is very important as  building then later automating is fraught with difficulties and frustration. The best advice is to design for automation now, simulate in your chosen package to iron out issues, then build and automate at the same time.

Design for automation - therein lies the fun of operating a layout for me. The intent is to start with a very simple "run train to station - return train to fiddle yard" trial and gradually build to a complex timetable.  Hence the initial 4 ft x 2 ft layout - just big enough for me to experiment.

1. What level of flexibility and future expansion do you want?  This is important as some systems will offer what you need to start, but are difficult and/or expensive to upgrade from. Others whilst more expensive at the start will last a lifetime and support any size of system.

I can't see the 12 ft x 3 ft layout getting bigger than 12 - 15 locos and 30 - 40 points.  Enough to have fun with, but I don't want it to consume limitless amounts of time.

14 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

I have used both approaches in question 7, and am presently helping automate an existing exhibition quality layout and this has taken almost a year already and it is nowhere near complete. Conversely, I recently assisted in the electronic paper development of a large new layout that was being designed expressly to automate and that was completed in 3 months and it operated correctly when first switched on. I suggest strongly that there is a lesson here.

 

This list isn't complete but I think it does bring out some major issues that need to be considered before you can decide on what to buy, it is a very important decision and I personally think that there are only 2 options, for both hardware and software that could be as cheap as around £350 for software and command station up to £1000 for another option with my preferred option sitting at around £450. 

 

I'd mentally budgeted around £500 for controller and software. I'd like a workable solution, but not a Rolls Royce of one.

14 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

I have deliberately not specified a specific system at this stage, but consideration of the above will enable the correct and informed decision to be made, once and once only.

 

Thanks - the detailed answer is much appreciated. I'm quite happy nibbling away at buying a couple of coaches or some wagons and points each month until I've worked out what I need controller/software wise. It looks like a period of reflection and research is in order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wordsmith]

And thanks all for the other replies - this isn't going to be as simple as I thought...

[Suzie]

If the primary requirement is computer control then a Sprog could possibly be the command station of choice as a simple command station that will probably control all the trains you are likely to have running in 2' x 4'. The driving force of your choice will be what software do you want to use, and which command stations and feedback options does that software support. I suspect you will want to look at Rairoad & Co and Rocrail as probably the best software to automatically run trains, but other software like JMRI will also do it.

 

Command stations vary in price a lot and have a variety of features. Some include a feedback system, others do not and you will need a separate feedback system.

[WIMorrison]

@suzie - you omitted to include iTrain in your list which is able to run on all computing platforms which have Java - even a Raspberry pi and considered by many to be the best software to automatically run trains

 

 

 

[Andymsa]

5 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

@suzie - you omitted to include iTrain in your list which is able to run on all computing platforms which have Java - even a Raspberry pi and considered by many to be the best software to automatically run trains

 

 

 

 

Umm, it could be said many consider traincontroller the best software for automation. Let’s not go down this route of my dad is bigger than your dad. Let’s just give the OP fair unbiased advice and leave our views to ourselves and stick to facts. Each of the two programs have plus and minus points, it’s what the OP wants to achieve and there ease of use of a specific program should be the guiding factor in that choice, that’s why I stated in a post download both and try them. I’m fairly sure suzies omission hasn’t affected his knowledge of what’s available.

[WIMorrison]

@Andymsa what you are pointing out is that people who presently have TC consider it the best software, people who use iTrain consider their choice the best choice, similarly people who use JMRI consider that the best, people who use RocRail to be the best, and people who use ...

 

I deliberately did not mention any specific brands or programs and the omission of one program from the commonly understood list was an error that needed correcting. The statement about that software running on any platform is also accurate and could be important. 

 

The OP has many decisions to make and I am sure that given budgetary constraints and the size of the layout the correct decision will be made by the OP, though possibly with hopefully unbiased advice from this forum.

Edited August 20, 2019 by WIMorrison

[Andymsa]

46 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

@Andymsa what you are pointing out is that people who presently have TC consider it the best software, people who use iTrain consider their choice the best choice, similarly people who use JMRI consider that the best, people who use RocRail to be the best, and people who use ...

 

I deliberately did not mention any specific brands or programs and the omission of one program from the commonly understood list was an error that needed correcting. The statement about that software running on any platform is also accurate and could be important. 

 

The OP has many decisions to make and I am sure that given budgetary constraints and the size of the layout the correct decision will be made by the OP, though possibly with hopefully unbiased advice from this forum.

 

No I wasn’t pointing out that any particular user of any particular program thinks there choice of program is better than others around. I didn’t think the reminder was needed. You made some vague reference to budgetary constraints and multi platform use which is rather biased in itself as it’s making a reference indirectly.  That’s why I have kept away from a product like for like comparison and gave advice of download both as I don’t wish  to get into the same debate as dcc v dc. both programs have good and bad points, but in your original post in point 7 gave the wrong impression that both programs are equal which they are not. But not to show bias myself let’s look at two features, I-train can have signal images that control the new viessmann KS signals, so can traincontroller although more process are need so in this case I train has the edge. Now in I train switchboards you can’t display train images in traincontroller you can so the scales tip for traincontroller. This is just two examples of the two programs differences so they are not equal as said good and bad points. 

 

[jamespetts]

Welcome to the world of computer control. I am also in the process of building computer controlled layouts. I agree with Nigel's advice (which I followed with my own plans when he gave the same advice to me) to choose first the nature of automation required, then the software, then the hardware.

 

For my purposes, I wanted full automation of quite complex layouts with a mixture of main line and shunting movements fully automated. This requires very precise stopping, requiring decoders with back EMF (Zimo decoders are what I use; if you are content not to have sound, they can be obtained quite inexpensively). If your automation requirements might ever include a requirement for precise stopping (including any coupling or uncoupling movements), then this is a consideration. You will also need to make sure that your chosen software is good for accurate stopping. This requires speed profiling: this is where the software continuously runs your locomotive between two set points at a measured distance apart on the layout at different speed steps and measures the time that it takes in order to calculate the precise actual speed of any given commanded speed.

 

Consider also stay alive units; these are definitely possible in N gauge with the Zimo MX617/618N18 and SACC16, preferably using 470µF tantalum capacitors. These are important for automation because, unlike with a human operator, a computer cannot give a train that has stalled a push to get it going again.

 

For a choice of software, after much research, I decided upon TrainController Gold. This is the most expensive of the set, but JMRI (the free software) did not have sufficient automation features (it has very little abstraction to deal with automation of trains, so it is not possible to set up using in-built features something as basic as a schedule, for instance; automation can be done by a script, but there are few abstractions to which a script can attach, so it would either be procedural, thus inflexible and fragile and requiring an inordinate amount of work for every change or addition to a schedule, or require writing what would in effect be a very substantial piece of software in a scripting language in order to implement the necessary abstractions). iTrain is a possible alternative; it is less expensive and works with Linux (unlike TrainController, although this can be made to work on a Windows 10 VM inside Linux, which I do), but the present version has fewer abstraction features than TrainController (the latter of which has the ability to have variables and scripts as well as starting one of a number of trains from one of a number of points for a given schedule, etc., which is important if one wants to ensure variety of operation from a substantial fiddle yard).

 

A new version of iTrain is planned for later in the year, and it is uncertain whether or not this will improve on abstraction features. It is, however, said to contain a representation of UK signalling, which neither the current version of iTrain nor TrainController have (although JMRI does have this).

 

Another important thing to consider for automation is train detection. The preferable method of detection is using current drop sensors. This detects whether a train is in an electrically isolated section of track. This does, however, require having a great many electrically isolated sections of track (more than is common for DCC without automation), and, importantly, each turnout should be in its own, fully isolated, section. The droppers for each isolated section will then have to pass through an individual terminal on a current drop sensor module so that the hardware can tell the software in which precise section that the train is located. You must also make sure that the front and rear axles of all trains draw current; if they are not part of a locomotive, dummy locomotive with headlights or carriage with interior lighting, you will need to affix a 10k ohm resistor on the axle so as to produce a high resistance short of the track so that the current drop sensor can detect the presence of the last carriage.

 

In N gauge, automatic uncoupling is possible (if you are after this) using the Dapol EasiFit couplings and permanent magnets in the track (use rare earth magnets rather than the ceramic magnets supplied by Dapol, except in the fiddle yards, as the ceramic magnets are very noticeably unreal, whereas rare earth magnets (2x3mm) can easily be hidden; place two with opposing poles each side of the track within the rails to give the necessary force to pull apart the couplers). With automatic stopping as reliable as can be achieved with TrainController and good Zimo decoders, it should be possible to stop precisely enough on such a set of magnets.

 

As for control hardware, you will need to decide on a way of getting information from the layout back to your computer. This is important because the DCC protocol generally only allows for data to go one way (from the controller to the trains). RailCom is a method of allowing some limited data to go the other way using DCC, but this is in practice limited to reporting of the locomotive's DCC address and direction. There are thus various types of data bus available for receiving information from the layout. Because these data buses allow data to travel in both directions, they are generally used for operating accessories (such as signals and point motors) on the layout as well as receiving data from current drop sensors. The main data buses available are:

 

* LocoNet (Digitrax - but open protocol)

* XPress Net (Lenz)

* CBus (MERG - open protocol)

* LCC (NMRA - open protocol)

 

XPress Net is somewhat limited and has some difficulty working with RailCom. LCC is very new and so far has limited support in software. CBus is also somewhat limited in its software support, not having support from either iTrain or TrainController.

 

For my purposes, I chose LocoNet, and used the excellent Hans Deloof kits, although be warned that you have to solder these together yourself. Nonetheless, these are all through hole, rather than surface mount, kits and are quite easy to put together.

 

I initially put together a test layout using the Digikeijs DR5000 (which is a multi-protocol command station which can use LocoNet), but found this to be somewhat unreliable. Some people have had good results with a Z21, I understand, which does not need soldering together; I have not tried this. If you are interested, here is a demonstration of my N gauge automation test layout from last year.

 

I should note that I am still in the process of building my main layout, so the experience on which I draw for this post is incomplete. Your preferences and requirements may differ from mine, of course, so the optimum setup for you might likewise differ from the optimum setup for me. I do recommend detailed research and consideration before building.

 

Finally, you might want to consider joining MERG: I have had a great amount of assistance from the forum there, and some of the kits available only to members (especially the district cut-out kit, which allows the creation of DCC sub-districts) can also be useful, although, if you choose to use iTrain or TrainController, you will not be able to use their CBus kits.

Edited August 20, 2019 by jamespetts

[RFS]

45 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

Another important thing to consider for automation is train detection. The preferable method of detection is using current drop sensors. This detects whether a train is in an electrically isolated section of track. This does, however, require having a great many electrically isolated sections of track (more than is common for DCC without automation), and, importantly, each turnout should be in its own, fully isolated, section. The droppers for each isolated section will then have to pass through an individual terminal on a current drop sensor module so that the hardware can tell the software in which precise section that the train is located. You must also make sure that the front and rear axles of all trains draw current; if they are not part of a locomotive, dummy locomotive with headlights or carriage with interior lighting, you will need to affix a 10k ohm resistor on the axle so as to produce a high resistance short of the track so that the current drop sensor can detect the presence of the last carriage.

 

1) Turnouts do not need to be in their own isolated section. With RR&Co Traincontroller, which I too am using, the recommendation is not to monitor turnouts. TC uses routes which are paths from one block to another and it does not matter that there are unmonitored turnouts in between. TC expects a train travelling from block A to block B, for example, to turn up in block B regardless of there being turnouts in between.

 

2) Having resistor wheelsets on the rear axles of trains is also not necessary as Traincontroller Gold knows the length of trains and, using its dead reckoning, will know precisely when the train has fully entered the next block and it is therefore safe to release the previous block, plus any turnouts in between.  This processing also manages long trains in short blocks, and also short trains in long blocks where it's able to release the previous block more quickly.

 

The only reason for monitoring turnouts and having resistor wheelsets with TC Gold, is to detect coupling failures. Some people go to great lengths (and expense!) to do this but I have only gone as far as using resistor wheelsets on the last vehicle of every train - 2 axles to ensure detection. 

[WIMorrison]

Exactly the same is true for iTrain 

[justin1985]

I'd never really "got" automation on layouts until I saw this layout at the Stevenage exhibition this spring:

 

 

http://www.mscmaasenwaal.nl/burg-oberloewenstein.html

 

It's an N gauge layout of the rough kind of size you have in mind, and a very simple visible track plan, but plenty of hidden storage loops. Watching a succession of trains waiting for the line coming on or off the single track junction, with correct signalling, was pretty mesmerising. 

 

That layout is automated with iTrain, and the exhibitors had a second monitor facing the audience as part of the exhibition - which made it even more mesmerising! The operators mainly seemed to be sat around and enjoying themselves as it was all working so reliably!

[jamespetts]

That German layout is quite impressive! The video does remind me of another advantage of stay-alive units, however, which the OP will wish to consider, which is realistic slow acceleration.

 

With TrainController (and I suspect also with other software), when speed profiling, it is necessary to set a threshold speed: that is the minimum speed step that the locomotive/unit will be allowed by the computer to use. If this speed step is set too high, trains will accelerate from a dead stop to a fairly high scale speed almost instantly and likewise on braking.

 

This threshold speed can be set at the user's discretion, but if it is set too low, the locomotive may stall when being profiled, preventing profiling taking place at that speed, and thus preventing the locomotive from being used at all until profiling (in practice, with a higher threshold speed) be undertaken.

 

Thus, in order reliably to achieve smooth acceleration from stop and smooth braking, transitioning through slow intermediate speeds, it is necessary to have a high degree of reliability against stalls. Stay alive units (and other stall reduction mechanisms, such as maximising pickups and through-wiring of multiple units either with hard-wiring or using magnetic couplers) can greatly increase the realism of movement speed on an automated layout.

[WIMorrison]

@jamespetts I notice that the youtube video of this layout suffers from the same effect that I get when creating videos of my layout. I think it is frame speed on comeras that causes the starting, stopping and actual travelling speed to be much faster than they are in reality. I have also seen this Layout at Jaarbeurs in Utrecht and it doesn't accelerate or decelerate as quickly as the video suggests, and the speeds arent as fast as implied on the vid either.

 

I found this vid which shows the iTrain display panel of the storage yard - I do exactly the same with and 'hide' trains in the yard for random periods - simple but very effective 

 

 

 

[Wordsmith]

Thanks all - I have obviously got quite a bit of reading and thinking to do. 

 

This looks a more complex problem than I anticipated. 

[jamespetts]

Complex in an interesting and rewarding way, I hope.

Edited August 20, 2019 by jamespetts

[melmerby]

There is always this fully automated layout:

https://www.miniatur-wunderland.com/

 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by melmerby

[Alan Kettlewell]

Some relaxing activity on my HO layout - all automatic run by Train Controller..

 

 

 

Enjoy 

 

Cheers ... Alan

 

[Andymsa]

23 hours ago, Alan Kettlewell said:

Some relaxing activity on my HO layout - all automatic run by Train Controller..

 

 

 

Enjoy 

 

Cheers ... Alan

 

 

Hi alan,

 

you used the kibri kit Kiel for the station, that's exactly what I'm thinking of doing so is good to see an example of it in use.

 

andy