Ray H

With the club's control panels off the bench, I can turn my attention elsewhere.

The picture in my previous post shows just how close the servos are to the edge of the bed of the disused  track,  remembering that the disused track at the back of the platform is a relatively new alteration.

I can't use the same excuse for the area the other side of the station building where there hasn't been any changes since the original installation, as can be seen here:

With thoughts now turning to scenery - 😒 - and after discussions with Jim, we decided that the servos really needed to be hidden from view.

The two servos nearest the station building were the easiest to sort out, The platform has been narrowed by about an inch and the servos have been moved inwards and are now hidden under the platform - the disused track is just placed loosely in position. The section of the platform surface over the servos is pinned in situ and can be easily prised off to gain access to the servos if needed.

The two servos furthest from the platform on the same side of the station building (and just visible at top right edge in the above image) are next.

We decided that they could be moved nearer to the running line with a hole cut in the baseboard's visible plywood skin and the servos fixed in situ on the top side of the lower plywood skin.

The key thing as far as these changes go - aside from making sure they'll work wherever they end up - 🙄 - is to ensure the servos can be accessed/changed relatively easily if necessary (which is why they ended up on the surface in the first place). I also need to maintain access to the servo horn and, more importantly, to the small screw that secures said horn to the servo.

Consequently the thought was to position the servos such that their horns faced each other and then cut out a single long section of the top ply skin that allowed for a screwdriver to be able to access the aforementioned little screw, in each servo

The piece of plywood thus removed would then be re-instated and subsequently covered in scenery in such a way that it could still be lifted out if there was a future need to access the servos.

Unfortunately, as is evident from the above pictures, there's a signal post (and its servos) in between the place where it was intended to re-position the two point servos. I'm not too sure how we missed that!

I need to undertake a more detailed survey of the area and see whether the point servos can be located between the disused track and the signal, or under the disused track itself or just a little further in from the baseboard edge but under the top baseboard skin layer.

The intention is to have a road/track between the dis-used track and the baseboard edge from the lever frame area towards the single line, where it will cross the running line to give access to the provender store in the sidings in the corner of the garage. I think it might be easier to disguise a drop-in piece of roadway instead of trying the same in an area of general ground cover.

There is a plan for the other side of the station building which just may see a shortening of that end of the probably excessively long platform but more anon.

Update:

I originally purchased an A4988 driver and then discovered that the DRV8825 driver handled more current, so I purchased one of those and have been using that for the testing.

Trawling through numerous Internet pages yesterday trying to find something that might give me a clue as to how I could address the problems I've been experiencing led me briefly to a forum post or response to a post somewhere suggesting there were reported problems with the DRV8825 driver.

And so, on the off chance that it might be better, I swapped the DRV8825 for an A4988 driver and BINGO! My problems disappeared.

I've now had the A4988 running for a while during which it has performed some 120 or so randomly generated push button combination move simulations in groups of 40. It returns to the starting position at the end of each set - at least I can't see any deviation from that position on the test bed.

Problem apparently solved, thankfully.

Thanks Simon.

I can see your logic and was going to adopt the one way round idea until I suddenly remembered that despite it not really mattering whether diesels were turned or not, the majority of the stock on the layout is fitted with Dingham couplings which means they'd need to be turned twice.

2 hours ago, Simond said:

Ray

 

Simply comment out the lines that set the direction to the one you don’t want.  There’s probably a Boolean variable “DIR”? that can will go one way if it’s 1 or t’other if it’s 0,  
 

If DIR Is always 1 or always 0, It’ll always go the same way.

Thanks for the suggestion Simon.

I'd thought of that but as you can see from the addendum to my previous post, there's no specific set direction code. The direction pin is allocated (and set for output) but that's the only reference to the direction that there is. I suppose that I could try forcing the pin High or Low prior to each .runToPosition statement.

I might try stepping one step at a time within a for loop for example but I suspect that might make each overall movement slow.

Keeping the direction constant may solve the problem but I'd like to avoid it if I can because moving the bridge (say) 340 degrees when the two roads are only 20 degrees apart seems wrong.

Luckily the layout generally only uses diesels so turning them isn't too much of a problem and as its a terminus the appearance of the odd steam loco will be wanting to be turned.

I did briefly look to see if there was a different library to use with the A4988 controller but didn't find one.

The coding for the change of motor/driver involved alterations to just a few lines of code. I haven't installed the Hall Effect sensor so far. Instead I'm just using the motor's initial position setting when the sketch starts, as the base position, for testing.

The sketch causes the motor to move in response to the operation of any one of 6 push buttons. Buttons 1 to 5 will cause the motor to always move the turntable's bridge to a nominated position. The sixth button will move the bridge through 180 degrees based on its previously nominated position (set by buttons 1 to 5).

What I thought initially was a problem with repeated 180 degree turns has become a problem with regaining a nominated position when intermediate moves involve consecutive moves in opposite directions.

I'm using the AccelStepper library.

Is there a way using this library to always make the bridge move in the same direction?

Update

A simple Loop() code of:

        myStepper.moveTo(2400);
  // Run to target position with set speed and acceleration/deceleration:
       myStepper.runToPosition();

       delay(500);

  // Move back to zero:
      myStepper.moveTo(0);
      myStepper.runToPosition();

      delay(500);

causes the same problem

3 hours ago, KNP said:

Next the mainsail . . . . . . 

It's in the crate.

Progess Update.

I've mounted six push buttons in a small project box - the turntable will be dc only.

I've used the 28BYJ stepper motor and a ULN2003 driver, both of which came in an Arduino Upgraded Learning Kit that I purchased a while ago, to prove the logic. I've mounted the motor on a piece of 2mm  thick plastic and knocked up a "pointer" made from a coffee stirrer. I've glued a 3mm by 1mm round neodymium magnet to the end of the pointer. The pointer is glued to one of the motor shaft's two flat sides.

I've mounted a KY-003 Hall Effect Magnetic Sensor Module vertically on the outside edge of the plastic holding the motor.

The sketch uses the AccelStepper library. The void setup() function sets up the six push buttons and the sense pin from the KY-003 for INPUT_PULLUP and the motor's max speed and acceleration rate. It also initialises the bridge's base position.

The void loop() function simply checks each push button in turn in order to detect any button that is pushed. I spent a (very) long time this morning wodering why one of the button's code appeared to work in the opposite way to the others thereby preventing it from being detected. It wasn't a dodgy push button or naff coding - I'd picked the button at random from several that I had, only to finally realise/find that the one I'd chosen was a Push to Break when all the others were Push to Make. Doh!

There's a small array that holds the "move to" position (number) for each button. The pressing of one of the five buttons moves the bridge to the stored position relative to the bridge's home position (as decided by where the sensor stopped it earlier). The sixth button currently turns the bridge through 180 degrees from its most recent position and that's all there is to it.

The code has been tested and tidied up and will hopefully form the basis of the code used for the O gauge turntable. I appreciate that there may need to be some alterations to the code for the larger motor and its controller and that I may need to investigate/use a larger magnet. I also realise that the 180 degree turning may result with the bridge not aligning properly after the turn but I won't know this until everything's set up on the layout.

The code is attached below for anyone that's interested but remember it will most likely need revising to be used with larger motors although I do wonder if the current motor would be sufficient for N gauge.

I'll aim to provide an update once the O gauge turntable is up and running.

Stepper_Motor-V2c.ino

I've spent this morning completing my read of this thread - I've always been a slow reader.

I've had a look at part of Simond's Arduino thread as well.

I have managed to copy some of the code examples - for some reason I keep getting errors when I try to download the .ino files.

I've since gone back to Ray's initial series of posts and managed to copy the sketch in part 7 of his series.

However, I'm aware that there have been several modifications over the intervening years but can't find what I believe I previously saw which was a more recent version multi-track dc only version which I think references different drivers/libraries.

I don't have the turntable to hand so can't organise some of the hardware but I do have an Arduino's beginner kit that includes a stepper motor. I also have a few push buttons that I can hook up to do some basic testing.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a more recent copy of Ray's original sketch please?

I'm also a little unclear how precise the Hall Effect device is. Assuming a magnet (or other metallic item) is fixed on the end of the bridge and the Hall Effect device is fixed to the well wall does the Hall Effect device always "trigger" when the bridge is at the same position/step relative to the device?

Here's a belated update on the above.

The new control panels are in situ and their LEDs are illuminating to show the route selected. We've basically used a slimmed down version of route control where, for example, there is a fan of several tracks either side of a single line & there are push buttons that set the route from the single line to the desired siding and said push button only illuminates the LEDs applicable to that route so one push button may cause the operation of several LEDs and servos.

The servos on the two smaller panels are also in and working although their associated frog polarity switching relays have yet to be installed - they're replacing some currently unsuccessful frog juicers.

There are three Arduinos remote from control panels. These are linked to the nearest control panel via a CAN bus and are used to keep wiring runs to a minimum or where an I2C link to a servo/relay would need to be several meters away.

We've largely ignored "interlocking" as experience on our OO exhibition layout has taught us that it adds nothing other than confusion for the operators!

Apologies for the delayed update.

Thanks for the suggestions and comments.

I have been ploughing my way through this thread - and some of the linked ones - over the weekend. Alas the image side of some of the posts hasn't recovered from the site's outage a while back but I haven't as yet found this a problem.

My comment about 9600 baud was the result of a problem I had a few months back where my sketch, the compiler or something else took exception to me using the 115200 rate so I successfully knocked it back to 9600 and have left it like that since.

I'm not sure I understand what difference the baud rate makes as I only use the serial monitor for debugging but I'll have another try at a faster rate and see what happens.

I have been tinkering with Arduinos on and off for a while now and one of the early lessons I learned was that my (Intel based) laptop/Arduino combination wasn't too struck on using a high speed serial connection so I always run mine at 9600 baud.

Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick as I've literally only started looking at this thread again earlier today and only glanced at this and the first page.

I recall Ray starting the thread and followed it for some time but having not done any Arduino work at that time I let it go.

My interest has been re-kindled because a colleague has an O gauge turntable that he thinks has a stepper motor. He drives it (with fingers crossed) using nothing more than an SPDT switch. I know that stepper motors can offer more precise operation - it'll always rotate the same way because it is very noisy in the other direction.

Things have generally moved on a bit since this thread started - thanks Ray - so I wonder if anyone can point me in the direction of a suitable page to start reading that will avoid me scrolling through the entire thread especially as many of the original pictures have been lost.

Thank you.

I managed to scrounge a few old off-cuts from the club and have re-aligned the point slightly so that it is straighter. This is the result.

It took a bit of work to get it in such a position that it could theoretically have connected to the main line via a three way point on the station side of the signal.

The white card makes up the height difference between Peco track and home made track using PCB sleepering.

At least these pieces of track won't need wiring, so that's one less job to do. I'll spray the point in due course and ballast all of it with a largely cinders ballast.

28 minutes ago, Alcanman said:

My NCE Power Cab which was purchased over 10 years and has given very reliable service has failed for the first time today.

 

The red power light is not lighting up and the handset display comes on for a few seconds only.

 

Perhaps it has suffered a component failure? Any suggestions would be welcome.

 

Or is it time to 'bite the bullet' and buy a new Power Cab?

That happens when there's a short circuit on the track (as well?)

I've had the pins in the handset come out of alignment and the lead and plug become separated.

Can you disconnect the track power from the PCP and try again? Likewise, try the flat ribbon cable the other way round if possible.

The access flap has been ballasted but probably isn't of too much interest elsewhere hence the lack of a photo.

I've done a little more to the lifted track under the "bridge" at the other end of the garage.

I've taken advice from Jim and added a fence and a gate and applied some hanging basket liner to the "land" between the BR line and the fence. There's also a cinder path just inside the fence. That can be seen petering out as it gets to the edge of the BR track, slightly to the left of the gate.

The lifted track under the "bridge" was not the only of Jim's ideas that I've taken on.

All of my servos are mounted on the top of the baseboard to make access easier should one need replacing - not something that I've encountered as yet but . . . . ✌️

The layout is largely rural and I was contemplating hiding the servos at Gawcott under the proverbial grassy bank. Jim suggested having some disused track between the back of the platform and whatever was going to cover the servos to stop the layout becoming too heavily reliant on grass.

I still had one point that became surplus when I remodelled part of the fiddle yard. I also had a couple of short lengths of track that I've already been able to press into service and am hoping the I might acquire a couple of pieces of aged Peco track that are surplus at the club later today.

The two coaches currently in use on the LR were very much a stop gap measure. I plan to replace them eventually with some kit built ones that I have yet to start building. I've also got a few wagons with coarse scale wheels that may get cast aside in due course. The unused track will make a good home for both wagons and coaches that the LR has cast aside.

1 hour ago, KNP said:

It’s called the main line - 8ft long it is???

Now there's Welsh for you. 😄

Has KNP moved?

Thanks Jim.

I might even get carried away later today and ballast the BR track across the lifting flap and below the Halt.

The aforesaid mentioned photos.

Here's the section of lifted track. I may re-shape the cardboard a little so that there is a gap between the edge of the track and the backscene. Alternately I may reseat the backscene to achieve a similar aim.

And the gradient alongside Westbury Crossing station having just been the subject of fixing with diluted PVA.

Next is the LR track on the lifting flap with what remains of the ballast - I hadn't realised how much ballast had come away until I looked at the flap with a clear head this morning.

I have yet to decide whether to use the Ballast Magic on the other tracks on the flap or go for the more conventional diluted PVA option given how often the flap is likely to get knocked about when being lowered into place or lifted/folded.

Finally, a bonus picture of Gawcott's wooden platform surface having just been painted. The edge nearest the track has yet to be painted white even though it looks as though that has already been done.

The club's control panels and associated gubbins went back to the clubroom over a week ago and there has been some advances in their installation and testing. However, there's one part that I couldn't get to work when I spent some time at the club (on my own) yesterday and tracking that down in the Arduino's program is today's prime task here at home.

Our daughter was here for lunch on Sunday and then tested positive for Covid on Monday so we're in limbo waiting to see if we managed to avoid the lurgy taking a liking to us.

I have managed to progress work on the layout here over the past week or so with Gawcott's platform surface now covered in coffee stirrers to represent a wooden surface. I've also ballasted a few bits of the railway.

The LR track on the lifting flap and on the fixed baseboard past Tingewick halt up to where the LR disappears under the upper level baseboard, plus Tingewick's private siding have been done so far.

Jim suggested a derelict/lifted track under the "bridge" just outside Gawcott - where the LR crosses over the two lower level tracks. I cut a piece of corrugated cardboard to the rough shape of the area between the outside of the BR track and the backscene, super glued some Peco sleepers to the card and then ballasted the track area with a mix of ballast and Ballast Magic powder and I then sprayed the ballasted area with water and left to dry.

It dried (and stuck) well and is now in position on the layout. It needs finishing but I was so impressed with the Ballast Magic that I (a) ordered some more and (b) used it with the ballast over the lifting flap. The recommended mix is between 5 & 10 parts ballast to 1 part Ballast Magic. I'd used a 1 to 7 ratio on the cardboard so decided to try a 1 to 8 mix on the lifting flap.

That wasn't the best place to try the lesser mix as not all the ballast stayed in place when I folded the flap back. I'm thinking that I might use the more normal diluted PVA method on the lifting flap when I replace the missing ballast and when I ballast the BR track on the flap. I aim to use the Ballast Magic elsewhere save for the inclined track adjacent to the garage wall alongside Westbury Crossing where the ballast was put down a few weeks back and is yet to be fixed in place.

I'll add some photos in due course.

3 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

No such thing as franchises or franchisees any more.  The TOCs that are not being run by the so-called Operator of Last Resort are all on management contracts with literally just about every penny of expenditure requiring DfT authorisation and minimising costs the only objective. 

 

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the intermediate stations were just closed.  Ditto Stourbridge Town branch due to the ailing PPMs. 

And who would put money on DfT having the same thoughts as the franchisees?

And hidden behind this is no doubt a shortage of LNW crews with the branch crews being used to fill gaps in the Euston service. One of these days new franchisees will learn that there has to be a level of extra staff (apparently over and above the rostered number) to cover leave, short term absence and promotion/retirement.

I'm sure some of the longer serving LNW staff must have worked the Class 150s & 153s - the latter incidentally must be shorter than the platforms - so if there was a will I doubt it would take too long for their stock refresher training and, with a little persuasion of the relevant unions, could involve the setting up of a short term small dedicated link primarily to work the "branch" whilst the remaining crews went through the full stock training.

One thing that needs doing sooner rather than later is to start routinely running something - a light loco might suffice - to keep the crews road trained otherwise the autumn re-start will get pushed back even further because although the crews will be stock trained, their route knowledge will have expired (and by the time everyone's road training is complete) they will, no doubt, require stock refresher training.

4 hours ago, Lambton58 said:

Trains have to be less than 40 metres in length to meet the platform length and not obstruct level crossings – very few trains meet this criteria hence the limited choice of replacement engines.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I missing something here?

As quoted above there are (currently) unlikely to be any passenger trains until much later in the year due to the limited lengths of the platforms limiting the choice of train that can be used. To my mind that means that the platforms won't see much if any use in the intervening time.

Question 1: How long (timewise) would it take to increase the platform lengths?

Question 2: Whilst I understand that there is to be some potential rationalisation of stations between Bletchley & Bedford that will bring about some station closures, will the above mentioned short platforms continue to limit the stock to be used once the Bletchley/Bicester section is open or will the remaining platforms need to be lengthened before then anyway?

Question 3: Will any new build work - platform extensions or new station platforms - mean further periods of no trains and/or possessions?

Have you thought of a micro switch activated by the tie bar?

Something like https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/9011365477

I've done a little bit more to the layout in the last few days having, as I thought, finally seen the back of the club layout's control panels and associated periphery.

The mock up of the loco shed/carriage storage at Gawcott has been kept, had a roof added with the roof and sides being overlaid with suitably enlarged Scalescenes' corrugated iron self print papers. The doors are still just card and await replacements, talking of which . . . .

I was out for a walk a few days ago and came upon some kind soul's tidy heap of what looks like a deceased fence panel - the heap was on a temporarily re-purposed supermarket trolley. Amongst the bits was at least one "slice" of the fence with excellent patina which would be ideal for the loco shed's doors (and save a lot of weathering!). Unfortunately I don't carry a saw around with me to allow me to remove just a small section of the said slice.

Unfortunately, the above mentioned control panel peripherals have returned to the garage for some adjustments but I'm hoping the necessary work might be finished within a couple of days.

You have identified one scenario above. That's hardly likely to keep your enthusiasm alive for very long.

You need to add other scenarios into the mix before you start going too mad on purchasing/making any track.

Sorry if I sound too negative.

Your proposed/suggested change of scale puzzles me.

Your first post indicated that you were planning a test track with 0-6-0Ts and nothing larger than a Class 2 diesel. Coaches (and potentially other long vehicles) were excluded from your thinking. You also implied that you weren't intending to go mad with the scenery. Has this changed?

You've now mentioned track making (consequent upon the scale/gauge change).

I believe that you have more than enough space to achieve your original aims in O gauge, where 6ft radius curves wouldn't be compulsory with the loco sizes you've previously mentioned.

Have you considered having the sidings on the outside of the oval but across the end rather than down one side?

Talk of shunting wagons makes me think that your intention is to build something more like a layout and not so much like a test track.

I fear that following your latest suggested route would involve a lot of work before you can get trains running and even if it is more of a layout than a test track, does the not to scale rail size actually matter?