Can I automate my fiddle yard?

[Andymsa]

3 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

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

 

I have followed this thread with interest, and many good points have been made to your questions. I get the impression that you’re looking for reasons not to go with automation of your staging yard , I would say not to go with automating the yard at all. Both programs although very simple once you grasp the basics are easy to use, but I feel reading your questions that you will struggle with the basics and therefore automation software is not for you and look into other methods to automate the staging yard if you really need this. There is also the issue that the layout is being built for you and the builder of the layout might not interpret your requirements in regards to detection sections needed, which would be difficult to change at a later date.

[Tallpaul69]

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 

[Dungrange]

I've been following this thread only out of interest because one day I hope to automate the fiddle yard on my own attic layout (if I ever make progress) and we may need to adopt something similar for a future club layout, but the comment below caught my attention.

 

On 31/10/2023 at 15:04, Tallpaul69 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.

 

With automation, you (personally) don't use any of the feedbacks: they are the 'eyes' of the computer.  You can see everything that is happening on the layout by simply looking at the layout.  You can see what is where, what is stopped and what is moving.   However, the computer only knows what is happening on the layout via the information from the feedbacks you install (and the information that you provide it with regarding stock, a track plan etc).  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.

 

On 31/10/2023 at 19:09, Tallpaul69 said:

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............

 

On a pure cost benefit analysis, I agree that spending maybe £1,000 on automation is perhaps a lot of money to simply drive six trains in rotation.  You'd be much cheaper just inviting a friend round to run those trains for you (and benefit from a conversation at the same time).  However that is effectively what the automation software is: it's taking on the role of another human operator (or operators).  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).  You don't want the software to 'see' the areas of the layout that you want to control.  Imagine if you invited a friend round to run those six trains on the continuous run and told them not to pay any attention to what you're doing.  How do you think that would turn out?  What happens when you and he/she don't communicate what you're doing? 

 

Over time, might you decide to allow that friend to run some other trains as well as the six that he/she was originally limited to?  Your benefit no 2 should be the flexibility of allowing your software 'friend' to help run more of the layout.  When you're driving, are you also acting as signalman?  Do you want those dual roles?  If the software is informed about everything that is going on on the layout, then it could change signals while you drive.  Ultimately, there is a continuous spectrum between manual control and full automation, and you can leave as little or as much running of trains to the software as you want, but the software needs to be able to 'see' what is going on, which is what the feedbacks are for.

 

As for whether you need feedbacks everywhere, I'd assume that you could limit the number in your goods yard, which it appears will be manual only.  The software needs to be able to understand that you've driven a train in, but since it doesn't need to follow your shunting, I can see a case for not installing feedbacks on all goods sidings.  However, you'd effectively have to tell the software that that part of your layout doesn't exist: it's just a single siding that you drive into.  You 'delete' the train from that siding while you're shunting and then add the details of your departing train back into the automation software before you can drive back onto the mainline.  I can see a cost saving, but obviously extra faff when you want to drive your train out onto the mainline.

 

If you've decided automation is not for you, then fair enough, but if you're getting your layouts professionally built, I don't see the benefit of you having a test track built to test out how and where to put feedbacks.

[Andymsa]

1 hour ago, Tallpaul69 said:

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 

I do find your reply somewhat disingenuous and to a point insulting. No one was telling you to fully automate your layout, only to install detection on all the layout to achieve what you wanted because even if your not running the whole layout automatically the software still needs to know what happing elsewhere and for train tracking to work in the automated area, If you associate detection as full automation this is a fundamental flaw in your understanding of the replies you have got. there was no need to ask how your going to run other aspects of the layout as this was covered quite clearly in your initial post. Even by your admission you have found various aspects technically challenging, so how can you explain your needs to the layout builder clearly, you found the pc screen confusing as to information displayed which was an issue for you. No one has said you’re foolish or has been preaching to you, but you got good sound advice from those who have been using pc software and train tracking and automation for years with a good understanding of these aspects of the questions you asked. 

[Tallpaul69]

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

[Tallpaul69]

14 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

I do find your reply somewhat disingenuous and to a point insulting. No one was telling you to fully automate your layout, only to install detection on all the layout to achieve what you wanted because even if your not running the whole layout automatically the software still needs to know what happing elsewhere and for train tracking to work in the automated area, If you associate detection as full automation this is a fundamental flaw in your understanding of the replies you have got. there was no need to ask how your going to run other aspects of the layout as this was covered quite clearly in your initial post. Even by your admission you have found various aspects technically challenging, so how can you explain your needs to the layout builder clearly, you found the pc screen confusing as to information displayed which was an issue for you. No one has said you’re foolish or has been preaching to you, but you got good sound advice from those who have been using pc software and train tracking and automation for years with a good understanding of these aspects of the questions you asked. 

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

[5BarVT]

1 hour ago, Andymsa said:

 install detection on all the layout to achieve what you wanted because even if your not running the whole layout automatically the software still needs to know what happing elsewhere and for train tracking to work in the automated area,

Sorry, I don’t think that’s true.  It’s certainly not true for the software I use as part of my previous layout didn’t have train detection.  That part wasn’t used automatically and it didn’t prevent automatic operation over the part of the layout that did have train detection.

Its how you interface it that matters (its always the interfaces!).

Nothing that I’ve read/seen so far about iTrain indicates that it can’t be interfaced in a similar way.
No  need to confirm or deny just yet as I’m working up a diagram of what I think was Paul’s simplest requirement.  I’ll post that later with relevant questions.

Thanks all,

T’other Paul.

 

 

 

[Andymsa]

12 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

Sorry, I don’t think that’s true.  It’s certainly not true for the software I use as part of my previous layout didn’t have train detection.  That part wasn’t used automatically and it didn’t prevent automatic operation over the part of the layout that did have train detection.

Its how you interface it that matters (its always the interfaces!).

Nothing that I’ve read/seen so far about iTrain indicates that it can’t be interfaced in a similar way.
No  need to confirm or deny just yet as I’m working up a diagram of what I think was Paul’s simplest requirement.  I’ll post that later with relevant questions.

Thanks all,

T’other Paul.

 

 

 

the only way I can see the transition between non detected areas and detected areas is manual input and removal of the train ID, if this is the case although feasible is rather a messy method as it would require a close eye to be kept on things. Or did you use a different method and I’m very familiar with TC

[Andymsa]

2 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

 

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.

In this context it’s important to use the correct terminology, it saves lots of confusion. I certainly wasn’t moaning but I can only draw my conclusions on what is written 

[5BarVT]

1 hour ago, Andymsa said:

the only way I can see the transition between non detected areas and detected areas is manual input and removal of the train ID, if this is the case although feasible is rather a messy method as it would require a close eye to be kept on things. Or did you use a different method and I’m very familiar with TC

Yes, the train ID got left in the last block.  If I wanted to use the block for other things I deleted and reinstated.  Otherwise, it just stayed there while I shunted about ‘off stage’.

Haven’t got a working layout at present so I can’t check this in practice, not is it (easily) simulatable, but think I was able to run unidentified trains backwards and forwards through the detected areas without upsetting TC.  (I wasn’t running anything automatically so no conflict protection was required.)

Paul.

[Andymsa]

14 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

Yes, the train ID got left in the last block.  If I wanted to use the block for other things I deleted and reinstated.  Otherwise, it just stayed there while I shunted about ‘off stage’.

Haven’t got a working layout at present so I can’t check this in practice, not is it (easily) simulatable, but think I was able to run unidentified trains backwards and forwards through the detected areas without upsetting TC.  (I wasn’t running anything automatically so no conflict protection was required.)

Paul.

Thank you for the clarification and is as I thought, personally I would really avoid this method of working as mistakes are far too easy to make

[5BarVT]

So!

Going right back to Paul’s initial operational requirements, can this be done in iTrain:

Assumptions and Caveats
Track and points beyond the red lines is unknown to iTrain.

Feedbacks are only provided in blocks, 2 in the loops as stopping position may be tight, 1 for platform, arrive and depart blocks.

Manual operation uses dcc handset to operate points. Procedural limitation not to operate any points on the ‘circuit’ from DCC handset during Auto running.

Next button isn’t used (yet!).
Operations

Manually run six trains out and position in the Up and Down loops.

Insert train ID into each block.

Manually run another train into the station sidings.

Operate Man/Auto (soft) switch to Auto

Press ‘Start’ to initiate a sequence of automatic runs on both circuits, continuing until Man/Auto returned to Man, which halts the moving trains when they next return to the loop.  (Could be an ABC ABC order of trains, or start all three and let them ‘fight it out’ who goes when operation.)

While that is happening, shunting takes place in the station yard and/or in the layout extension not shown.

Once back in Man, train(s) in the loops are swapped and the train in the sidings is replaced by another.

From what I’ve read, I think iTrain should be able to do that and it only involves 16 feedbacks.

 

Am I right, or a meringue?

NB This is a purely technical question about the capabilities of iTrain to achieve the operational requirement given the specified assumptions and caveats.

Neither the validity of the assumptions and caveats or the limitations of the operational requirement is up for discussion (yet, be patient!).

I think the sequence of automatic trains is managed by train routes with actions triggering the next train (or all three on each line running simultaneously).  I think track routes could be used for the manual routing of trains, but I’m aware of Paul’s screen size etc limitations.

Many thanks iTrain experts,

 

Paul.

[5BarVT]

21 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

Thank you for the clarification and is as I thought, personally I would really avoid this method of working as mistakes are far too easy to make

Running to and fro though the automatic area was for train testing, never happened during ‘operation’.  Leaving the Train ID in the block stopped other trains using it, when it was needed for auto running, shunting had to stop.  So, in effect, the train id in the block was used as a form of protection.

No worse that running two trains on a non automated layout, and probably a bit better!

Paul.

[Tallpaul69]

On 02/11/2023 at 22:38, 5BarVT said:

So!

Going right back to Paul’s initial operational requirements, can this be done in iTrain:

Assumptions and Caveats
Track and points beyond the red lines is unknown to iTrain.

Feedbacks are only provided in blocks, 2 in the loops as stopping position may be tight, 1 for platform, arrive and depart blocks.

Manual operation uses dcc handset to operate points. Procedural limitation not to operate any points on the ‘circuit’ from DCC handset during Auto running.

Next button isn’t used (yet!).
Operations

Manually run six trains out and position in the Up and Down loops.

Insert train ID into each block.

Manually run another train into the station sidings.

Operate Man/Auto (soft) switch to Auto

Press ‘Start’ to initiate a sequence of automatic runs on both circuits, continuing until Man/Auto returned to Man, which halts the moving trains when they next return to the loop.  (Could be an ABC ABC order of trains, or start all three and let them ‘fight it out’ who goes when operation.)

While that is happening, shunting takes place in the station yard and/or in the layout extension not shown.

Once back in Man, train(s) in the loops are swapped and the train in the sidings is replaced by another.

From what I’ve read, I think iTrain should be able to do that and it only involves 16 feedbacks.

 

Am I right, or a meringue?

NB This is a purely technical question about the capabilities of iTrain to achieve the operational requirement given the specified assumptions and caveats.

Neither the validity of the assumptions and caveats or the limitations of the operational requirement is up for discussion (yet, be patient!).

I think the sequence of automatic trains is managed by train routes with actions triggering the next train (or all three on each line running simultaneously).  I think track routes could be used for the manual routing of trains, but I’m aware of Paul’s screen size etc limitations.

Many thanks iTrain experts,

 

Paul.

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  

[Nigelcliffe]

25 minutes ago, Tallpaul69 said:

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  

 

 

There is negligible difference in functionality between iTrain and TrainController.    So, I'd suspect (2) is the answer.   The thread has yo-yo'd around so much that most will have lost interest. 

 

 

But, before jumping into one package or another,  I'd suggest some background research into the two software makers.   There is a world of difference between the attitude of the makers of the packages to questions from users, the way faults/problems are handled, and overt discrimination against users if you happen to live in certain countries.    I'd only consider one of the two makers.  

 

 

"T'other Paul" said this on 18th October in this thread: 

 

Quote

I’m a Traincontroller user but I would advise anyone starting from scratch to go iTrain because of what I perceive to be better support systems.  [......].

I also suspect that TC could be described as nearly at the end of its system life whereas iTrain is much nearer the beginning.

 

 

- Nigel

 

 

[Andymsa]

1 hour ago, Tallpaul69 said:

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  

I don’t believe there is any thing to comment on as the subject has been covered in detail already, what may be possible in a theoretical sense, will certainly be different in an operational sense. As you will see from 5barvt reply to me was he had only tried this during testing and not in operation. If this is the route you want it’s your layout, but don’t moan when you find the issues that have already been outlined.

[5BarVT]

And to add one further fact.

 

I looked TC Bronze and it is sufficiently limited that it can’t do what I suggested.  At the least it needs more feedback sections as it must have separate detection for brake and stop.  It can’t do what I would need for the push buttons and switches.

So the TC route would need to be minimum Silver which has a cost impact making it similar to or more than the top of the range iTrain.

(Haven’t done the detail sums as one is priced in € to other in $.)

Paul.

[Andymsa]

The silver version of tc 574 euros as of today’s currency rate

standard I train 209 euros

 

top range I train 349 euros

 

no where similar pricing between the two programs

[Tallpaul69]

1 minute ago, Andymsa said:

The silver version of tc 574 euros as of today’s currency rate

standard I train 209 euros

 

top range I train 349 euros

 

no where similar pricing between the two programs

But, price of iTrain is immaterial if it will not do what I need and TC can!

[Andymsa]

6 minutes ago, Tallpaul69 said:

But, price of iTrain is immaterial if it will not do what I need and TC can!

To spell this out in plain English both programs will do what you want, should you do it absolutely no as you WILL have issues.

 

 

[Tallpaul69]

Andy,

Life is full of issues, but which are important to me in my part automated railway?

 

These are my off the top of my head suggested Issue, which would be important to the person raising them if they were operating my system:-

1) Difficult to expand system, without major expense, lack of feedbacks means work under baseboards.

Answer:- By the time I have the current expansion completed and the system up and running, it is unlikely that I will want further automation.

2) Likely that points in the middle of a block will be by mistake changed causing failure. 

Answer:- apart from testing, system will be worked to a timetable, which will include checks of settings before automatic operation starts. Automatic operation will account for some 10-15% of operating time.  

3) Trains will disappear out of automated zone and in the system display be stuck in last block on zone.

Answer:- The automatic zone is a continuous run. Trains will only be moved out of the zone in manual operations when the automation is switched off. Manual operations of trains during automatic operation will only be in areas outside the zone. 

 

In the next couple of days I will go back through this thread to identify and answer other issues raised by contributors.

 

Cheers for now,

Paul

 

  

[Tallpaul69]

Hi All,

In my last post I said I would look back through the thread to locate other things raised as issues:-

A few posts back, I identified some issues myself, but things move on and i think these can be removed as issues:-

So I raised these Problems:-

1) Need to have sidings dedicated to holding the "automatic" trains while the loops on the continuous run are used for other trains. 

Answer:-

Those trains will need to be somewhere when not on the continuous run, but that would be true in wholly manual operation. However, these sidings need not be part of the "automated" zone, so these trains will need to be run to the continuous run loops manually before "automatic" operation commences.

 

 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.

Answer:-

I need to flesh out the details, but essentially:-

Wall mount a large screen. This to display schematic of "automated"  continuous run and  fiddleyard loops.

Use laptop to enter details necessary to run trains (layout, locomotives, trains, etc.) before running trains manually or automatically.

Use handheld for throttles.  

 

3) cost of implementation - including installation of feedbacks, cost of feedback multiplexers, doubling of labour costs if I change builder to a suggested builder.

Answer:- stay with current builder

 

4) Possible delay in building from above? 

Answer:- no delay if I stay with current builder.

 

So together with my comments in my last posting, I am now a lot more positive about a way forward to give me the degree of automation I need using the blocks put forward by @5BarVT, bearing in mind there will be no movement along the tracks which his diagram showed with a red bar, during "automatic" operation.

 

Cheers for now,

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

On 02/11/2023 at 22:38, 5BarVT said:

So how might the operation of my six trains run with iTrain?

As I see it:-

We will assume as a starting point that the details if the six trains and their locomotives are in the iTrain memory, and that a program to run the six trains is in the appropriate system memory. The Man/Auto switch is in the Man position.

So we would need to move(drag?) Train 1 icon into the Down Loop 3 block above, followed by the same action with the other two down trains.

Then we move Train 4 icon to the Up loop 1 block above, followed by the same action for the other two up trains.

 

Next we need to check that the points in the up and down lines other than those at the ends of the six loops are set for through working and correct any that are not. 

 

If we now change the Man/Auto switch to Auto, train 1 should start to move out of Down Loop1 block clock wise round the down track. The Train 1 name will stay in the Down Loop 1 block until Train 1 is detected at the Down arrival block, when train 1 will appear in that block. As the train moves on, Train 1 will disappear from the Down Arrival block and appear in the Down Platform block. It will stay there until Train 1 returns to Down Loop 1 when it will disappear from the Down Platform block and reappear in the Down Loop 1 Block. 

 

As I prefer the up and down trains not to pass each other in the station platforms, Up train 1 will be appropriately timed in the system to depart the UP Loop 1 block just before Down train 1 returns to Down Loop 1 Block. This train will then proceed round the Up track with indications in the Blocks appearing and disappearing according to whether the train is inside  or outside a block.

 

During this sequence manual operation will take place in the areas beyond the red bars

 

The speed of the trains will have been set in the system according to the type of train it is.

 

When all six trains have taken a trip round the circuits , the Man/Auto switch can be returned to Man to allow manual working to resume or the Next switch used to repeat the sequence (?)     

 

Depending on what the next action to take place will be, we may need to remove the six train icons from the six loop blocks before changing from Auto to Manual.

 

I have probably forgotten something, so please tell me what I have left out?

 

Cheers

Paul

[Nigelcliffe]

I've one further comment on the "plans".

 

It would be fine to add just the hardware for layout feedback for the "mainline only rounds" automation.   But, I recommend that the wiring for the remainder of the layout is done with provision to add more feedback hardware later should this prove desirable or necessary.   The work is little more than identifying what might be a future feedback section, and bringing the wiring for each section to a common location with a connector (Screw terminal block, Wago connector, or similar of choice) which can be later disconnected and the feedback device wiring inserted at this break point.   Additional cost of layout construction should be minimal.      Done well, this would mean the hassle of installing additional feedback devices later will be little more than the cost of the additional hardware devices.   

 

 

 

- Nigel

 

 

 

[5BarVT]

Hi Paul,

1 hour ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Next we need to check that the points in the up and down lines other than those at the ends of the six loops are set for through working and correct any that are not. 

Assuming your points on the continuous run are dcc operated, iTrain will set them for you.  If not, I would recommend that they are so that you have the security of it getting it right.

Paul.