hicksan

I am approaching the code as nested scripts, with the base level made up of a repertoire of simple movements and then calling these to execute the sequence once the logic part has figured out what to do. In theory this could be generalized to any layout. The long term plan is to automate stations or fiddle yards within larger layouts - along the lines of the famous Automatic Crispin only able to drive trains and shunt them. The buildings are lovely, btw.

This has in fact been done, and in the 1960s to boot. You can find the video on Facebook under the title "1962: Machines Like Men" The National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park is currently building a recreation of this. I took a look at the original computer code once and it is brilliantly simple. One could do it with an Arduino Uno these days. Yes it uses logic, so is proper automation, and absolutely it is inspirational but the loco movements are quite basic. It isn't something that can be generalized onto any layout as I am intending. For me the Inglenook is merely proof of concept, not an end in itself.

MERG has a good number of "strategically positioned pensioners" who I'm sure will be keen to help me solve this. The questions of identifying which wagon is where and how to uncouple particular wagons without too many unnecessary extra movements are both at the heart of solving the practical part of this problem. Each has several possible solutions and I am not going to commit to any one of them yet, but it will be a fun process testing each till I find what works best. However my initial thought is that a single RFID sensor at the mouth of the points ought to be able to identify anything rolling over it. From that it will be able to retrieve data as to the length of each vehicle. If it knows the route set and the direction of movement (which it ought to since it will be driving) then it will be able to figure out exactly what is where and which have moved. The 'setup' process would require the loco to move the wagons into position, or could be entered manually via the control interface (probably a touch screen). RFID is a subject all by itself, where range and reliability are key. MERG members have been experimenting with the RC522 receivers and have already made a CBUS interface for it. Other groups, such as McKinley have had success with the Eccel Pepper-C1. With regard to couplings; again there are numerous options for "delayed uncoupling". I hesitate to fit electronic uncouplers in every wagon on grounds of cost. Personally I have used both Spratt & Winkle (mk2) and Kadee couplers and prefer the former (at least of wagons). I will probably then have a single uncoupling magnet near to the RFID sensor, and probably mounted on a servo so as not to cause accidental uncoupling of slow-moving trains. I figure that if the system knows the exact position of each wagon as it passes over the RFID sensor, combined with the length of the wagon, the speed and direction of the train and its stopping distance; then it ought to be able to figure out exactly where to stop the loco so as to position the correct couplings over the magnet before activating the servo. But all of this is just conjecture at this stage. I look forward to running some experiments on my test track and sharing progress (or failure) along the way. These are just the practical problems. I still have to figure out how best to solve an Inglenook with the fewest moves for any given wagon arrangement. My thought is - once I can reliably move wagons, collect, drop off and identify each - to code up several different approaches to run against the initial setup as simulations, before doing any actual movements, and then select whichever solution comes up as most efficient. It's going to be an interesting journey.

Brilliant or bonkers? Not sure which. Thanks for the kind words, all of you. And thank you Phil for a lovely layout to use as a test bed for a degree of automation never previously attempted successfully and, in my opinion, only made possible by technology that has appeared really within the last year. I am proposing to do 'proper' automation - as opposed to scheduled train running - and by 'proper' I mean shunting based on inputs that are not previously determined. This cannot be solved by just running a script: it has to figure out what to do first. To achieve this we need three things: (1) the right hardware - meaning practical solutions to physical problems - such as reliable uncoupling and how to determine the position of the train such that the correct wagons aligns to the correct uncoupling magnet, plus how to identify which wagon is which and where after every shunting move. (2) a layout control bus capable of sending rich data messages between the sensors and the processor. Most LCBs are limited to transmitting on/off states. Full automation requires vehicle data. I plan to use CBUS because an event message on CBUS can include up to three bytes of data, but there are other possibilities using wireless data networks. (3) a processor capable of running dynamic interpreted scripts (as opposed to compiled programs), and where the scripts can be nested so one can run others. This is possible with the Raspberry Pi PICO RP2040, which was only released last year, and where the code is commonly written in MicroPython - as taught in schools. Courtesy of MERG member Duncan Greenwood; we now already have a shield that will connect a PICO to CBUS and a library that allows MicroPython to talk to CBUS, including driving trains. If I succeed in this it will be by standing on the shoulders of giants. There are no guarantees that my attempt will be successful, but this is something that now can happen and so inevitably will - because this technology means someone eventually will succeed even if I don't. And I would rather not be beaten to the post by code written by a school child or a bot like ChatGPT. It is nearly two hundred years since the Rainhill Trials proved that steam railways were a viable proposition. Full automation has long been a Holy Grail for the model railway community. I believe a solution is now in sight and it is just a race to see who gets there first. Maiman Sidings is merely the first step that will lay the foundations and open the floodgates. And I plan to use my MERG exhibition lanyard badge as the handheld wifi controller to start it.

Does anyone have any pics or trackplan of Wyandotte Transfer? Built by Paul Stapleton, Alan Day and Steve Dennison. It featured in the Encyclopedia of Model Railways, published 1979, but with only 3 photos. Apparently it measured 6.5m x 0.5m on five baseboards as an O gauge industrial switching layout. Was it ever written up properly and published in any of the journals? I saw it once at an exhibition, in Ealing Town Hall around 1978, as a boy - and found it quite inspiring.

I am experimenting with some Faller Road System vehicles, converting to fit in UK OO-scale die-cast vehicle bodies. I plan to 3D print new chassis to retro-fit Faller parts, rather than use the Faller adjustable chassis kits (except as sources of parts). One thing I would like to do is introduce some acceleration and deceleration at the stopping points and slow them down a bit, so as to be driving around slowly in a goods yard - stopping at either the goods shed or coal bins depending on the vehicle. I am using Dingo Servo Signal Mount with a 50mm long magnet as stopping magnets, rather than the Faller stopping magnet - so that a decelerating vehicle doesn't then overshoot its stop. The question is what to add inside the vehicle? I am rather assuming a capacitor (and maybe resistor in series), in parallel with the motor, would do it - like a mini stay-alive. I am also assuming a small resistor (PCB trimpot for adjustible control) in series with the motor would slow it down suitably to a 10-20mph parking crawl. I also found a 3D printed junction mount, for servo, on Thingiverse which I may try out as much cheaper than the Faller version. Also when two tracks cross ideally it should be at 90 degrees, so a vehicle doesn't slew off its track onto the other. has anyone established what the minimum angle is at which this reliably doesn't happen? eg is 60 degrees acceptable, or even 45 degrees? Also what is the minimum turning circle radius that works reliably? My experiments suggest a 6cm radius circle is OK but nothing tighter than that. My vehicles will all be quite short wheelbase - vans or smallish lorries. The yard is a constrained space. Has anyone tried any of this?

The layout is now restored and fully operational. For its age it runs remarkably well. There is a video about it on the Oxrail 2021 website, up for a few more days. After which you'll just have to see it live at exhibitions. We are applying the same ideas but with newer technology to other layouts. An arduino-based timetable unit has been designed for the Abingdon layout, able to operate another arduino as a sound unit to play narration tracks every second or third step in the timetable. Timetables are read from a micro-SD card allowing operators to choose timetables for different years / rolling stock sets. The module also sets all the points and signals for every move and communicates text message status updates with a sister module in the fiddle yard. It uses the MERG CBUS protocol for communication over a 4-wire layout control bus. All inspired by Bossington.

Going back to the question I ACTUALLY asked: operators in front or behind the layout?

I've never seen a layout mounted 5ft high. 4ft perhaps. I tend to prefer 1m personally. It usually depends on the skyline perspective on the back scene - to look 'right' that should be roughly at eye level (as per reality). If people model a low skyline then the layout needs to be viewed at track level. I would say it is the responsibility of the exhibition manager to ensure all tastes/preferences are catered for within the scope of the exhibition. I don't begrudge the space given to Thomas the Tank engine kiddie layouts 2 foot off the ground either: as long as there is something for everyone.

I have no fixed views about height, but I know many people really like layouts mounted higher so they don't have to bend over to get eyes to track level and view it as if it were real. Not that many people have helicopters to fly over real stations. :-) There's always two answers for every question. Depends, I guess, on the layout and who it is aimed for.

I was thinking a foot rest using exactly the same design as your barriers at L&W, Phil, So all you'd need extra is two uprights off the same base - one long (as at present) and one short stub, set a few inches in front of it, to support the 'lower barrier' on which children could stand. You have already stressed how strong they were and how much weight they support. Ie not big and just a few extra horizontals the same as the rest, and only for the parts of a layout that get most crowded.

I like to put lots of high detail at the front of a layout. It helps in creating a sense of forced perspective because it draws the eye's focus away from the trains - you have to look through things or past things to see them (more like the real thing) - so you see the landscape first and then the railway. Cranes and ships with masts are good examples. This is only possible at exhibitions with decent barriers. It would take only one careless rucksack or over-bulky coat to rip the whole front of the layout off. I've seen that happen too. That said, one of the advantages of a decent barrier is it allows some of the exhibitors to stand in front of the layout - in the space created - and talk (yes: actually talk to the public) about it - what it represents, how it works, how it was built. One thing I have learnt from exhibiting is people love to ask questions, but they don't like to disturb someone clearly concentrating and engrossed in operating the layout. Hence the question: front or back? This maybe going slightly off-topic, but as it is an old thread no loss... The public love to interact with the exhibitors and love it all the more in layouts where the operators - at least some of them - are in front of the layout rather than behind it. People like to see control panels, especially nicely made ones, and fiddle yards, especially the automated type, and they love to see what the operator is doing and talk about how things were made. I have observed fascinated crowds in front of front-operated fiddle yards and peering over the shoulder of back-to-the-public signalmen, especially when the panel has lights and bells. All of which requires decent barriers to create an operating space in front of the layout. It can't be done with dowels on sprung door stops. Of course there are limits to this; it won't be right in all cases or even in most. Small or thin layouts are close enough anyway, most times. It works with operators one-person deep but not more. So signalmen or train drivers but not both, clambering past each other. It works with some layouts (big end-to-end types) but not others (where the FY is at the back anyway, and where the best space for the operators is inside the central well) but as a principle I have seen this work, be very effective and clearly appreciated by the viewers. Thoughts? Second question - thoughts on providing some barriers (eg at the most interesting part of the layout) with a raised platform along the outer side approximately at knee height (a) for smaller children to stand on to bring them up to head height with the layout and (b) to stop people leaning on the handrail quite so much. It might add strength to the barrier and would also stop families encouraging kids to duck under the barrier to stand in front of it - as if its purpose were to give the kids a clearer viewing space. Some exhibitions appear to provide plastic stools for families (and many families now bring their own) but I have found these quite intrusive, especially when people carefully place them in front of the barrier, up against the layout, rather than behind it "so the children have space to stand". Finally - I considered winding Christmas fairy lights along the handrail of mine, like barbed wire. To stop people leaning on it. Has anyone tried this?

Anyone know where I can get a complete set of drawings for Firefly? Plans to build one (or two) in 2mm scale.

I am curious as to your interest in a 1966 layout. What triggered it? It looks a very nice, finely made layout but what makes it so special apart from its age would be good to know - whether it was particularly innovative in its day - anything to help our researches much appreciated. We still don't know what condition it will be in; if the boards have warped due to damp it might be a challenge. Part of it is in Witney and the rest in Southampton so we can't get it any time soon, as things stand.

Oxford Club have acquired this layout following the death of Leslie Eden. It has been in storage for over 30 years. The plan is to repair and restore it to full working order to include in the 55th Anniversary Oxrail 2021 Virtual exhibition, from October 9th.