route setting or individual point control?

[ikcdab]

To begin at the beginning. I am currently planning a largish layout. To aid planning, i built a smaller test layout back in the autumn. Basic details are 4mm OO, handbuilt track, station based on Minories. Pointwork operated by servos.

On the test track, i implemented route setting for point operation. There are 8 possible routes, so a 8-way rotary switch ran through a diode matrix to trigger the correct servos.

this is the control panel:

i found that some setting of points allowed several routes to be set at once. For example, with all the points normal, the route from the UM to P2, the DM into P3 and from P1 to the goods sidings were all valid. So you can see on the rotary switch, that some positions have multiple routes against them. These are all valid from that particular point configuration. As i have two controllers and cab control, this seems to work OK.

However, the downside is that, even after operating the layout for 6 months, i still find myself hunting around the dial for the right route.The text is confusing to the eye.

 

So having operated the test track, i now am thinking about the main event. The station here will be a slightly enlarged version, longer platforms an extra loco siding and a new goods reception line. The new track diagram is shown below. Note that the three-way point and the point between LS1 and LS2 are "hand worked" and not part of the route setting.

You will see that i have tried to simplify the wording around the route selection knob to make it clearer to find the right route. The downside is that altough several routes are again available for one setting of the points (again UM to P2 is the same setting as DM to P3), i have not specified this so that the operator is forced to move the selector knob although the turnouts will end up the same. This seems wasteful to me, but clearer. 

 

So i am thinking about the options to make best human interface. These are:

1. route setting as i did on the test layout. Label each knob setting with ALL routes that are available with that setting. This is less wasteful of knob movement and as i have two controllers and cab control, two operators will argue less over the route knob - for example if operator 1 has selected UM to P2, then operator 2 knows he can also run a train P3 to DM. the disadvantage is that there are mutiple definitions around the knob which i personally find confusing.

2. route setting, as per the clearer wording. Advantage is that this is clearer but doesnt allow for the fact that several routes may be available from one knob setting, so makes working with two operators more difficult.

3. abandon route setting and the diode matrix and have each crossover working from separate switches. The layout is, in effect, 4 crossovers, two plain points and one three-way point. The advantage is that all is clearer and multiple operators should conflict less (is this true?) but the disadvantage is that the simplicity of route setting and hence the avoidance of engines approaching wrongly set points is lost. There is also the disadvantage that the control panel has more knobs. However, the main disadvantage is that i actually really like the idea of route setting, it is (as my friend said) "cool".

 

So the question is really, if i go for option 1 or 2, how can i label the knob to cater for multiple routes from one setting without it being text heavy and confusing? Is there a better way of doing it?

 

 

 

 

[Grovenor]

I would use one 3 way switch, one 4 way switch and one 2 way switch.

The two way would select one ot the two sidings at the top. (I would locate it in the track, make the track lines at 30 degrees to match the switch movement.

The 3 way would be in the green track just below the box, it would operate the two crossovers from that track.

The 4 way would be in the black track at the left hand crossover, controlling access to GR and P1, P2, P3.

This arrangement would fit nicely with your existing 3 way switch.

[Mick Bonwick]

44 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

So the question is really, if i go for option 1 or 2, how can i label the knob to cater for multiple routes from one setting without it being text heavy and confusing? Is there a better way of doing it?

 

I have had a good look at your diagram and think I could probably operate this layout without too much of a problem. There aren't really all that many routes to choose from and the way you have labelled the rotary knob for the new layout is clear to me. A look at the panel would indicate which points are set to where, wouldn't it?

 

I'd say stick to option 2.