开云体育

Ken,

You are correct, for perishable loads, you shouldn't use the alternate track feature.? Instead you could have a yard track for the cars with perishable loads, and operate that yard in the FIFO flow, one of the options for a yard track.? The program when delivering a car with a custom load to a spur, and finds the spur full, will send the car to the nearest yard.? If the driver for cars is staging, the program will limit the number of cars with perishable loads to be created out of staging, thus preventing the overloading of the spur and the yard tracks.

The "Alternate track" feature works for any type of load including the defaults, where the "use a ;yard track when spur full" feature only works for custom loads.

The alternate track feature works best when there's a reasonable number of cars that could be used for the spur and alternate track.? So if you had room for say 3 cars on the alternate, and 1 for the spur, having 6 or possibly less cars servicing that industry could give the program to opportunity to pull cars off the alternate track instead of delivering new ones.

Dan

Thank's all the group !? !? !

Fran?ois?

Dan,

The way you describe the off-spot track would work poorly for any form of
perishable cars. You only 'sometimes' you have extra cars and sometimes not,
the schedule sequence sounds like it would place the newer car at the
off-spot then expect the next train (providing it didn't have that type/load
of car) to move it to the real spot.

The issue I'd see is that it should consider which car is older in terms of
when it got loaded. Then the alternate would get picked at least when it was
older than the car in the train. Most industries tend to use a first-in
first-out flow. Also consider what the normal demurrage rules would be.
Leaving that car on the alternate is going to rack up charges. Quick
rotating them in and out will limit that and if the usual allowance is a
couple of days, it might mean no demurrage charges.

I would expect this behavior might be a bit of a challenge to program. But
from what I've seen, that's more likely what happens in industry.

-Ken Cameron, Member JMRI Dev Team
www.jmri.org
www.fingerlakeslivesteamers.org
www.cnymod.org
www.syracusemodelrr.org

Thanks. It is up and running now. Im going to try to tweak a couple of things. Ie file output and add credit to you in the notes and reupload over ne next couple of days. Thanks again!

Steve N.

Steve,

This has tripped over another method deprecation - this time, the now outdated form of writing to CVs as numerical values (this change was needed to support so-called indexed CVs in many newer decoders).

I've changed the file and uploaded a new version:

/g/jmriusers/files/ProblemsBeingWorkedOn/Speed%20Match%20Loop%20Problem/USpeedMatch_v1.3.3.py

Let's hope that works better for you.

Best regards,

Matt H

Thanks Matt, I might be over my head on this one.? It kicked out another Error.? I believe it applies to all the CV changes. If anyone knows how to get this error to clear I can apply those changes to future ones. (I Hope)
Thanks For Looking at this
Steve N.


i2019-12-05 07:51:58,259 sprog.SprogCommandStation? ? ? ? ? ? ?INFO? - Changing currentSprogAddress (for pseudo-idle packets) to 1(L) [Automated Speed Table]

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that the following files have been uploaded to the Files area of the [email protected] group.

• /ProblemsBeingWorkedOn/dsand/list routes.py

Uploaded By: Dave Sand <ds@...>

Description:
List the output turnouts and sensors in all of the defined Routes.

Cheers,
The Groups.io Team

That’s the issue for me running MTH with other locos not MTH. Got rid of mine.?

Russ A

I am using Panel Pro and have set a number of different routes across my layout. I would like to print the point settings for each of these routes but cannot find a way of doing that. When I edit a route the point settings for that route are shown in a small window which I need to scroll through to see all the points which need to be set for that route. Is there a way of printing the point settings in a table/list?

Jeff,

As you have noted, if the supply of cars with wood chips is available to the train at an earlier location, the program will deliver new cars directly to the spur and bypass the ones sitting on the alternate track. Cars on the alternate have wood chips, and the car in the train also has wood chips, the efficient move is the deliver the car in the train directly to the spur.

Since you have lots of cars with wood chips, and you want to rotate your stock from the "off spot", I would recommend that you not use the alternate track feature but instead create a sequence where new cars are delivered to the "off spot" first, and then to the spur for unloading.? The unloading spur should only accept a load called "wood chips-offspot". The off spot spur track would have a schedule demanding cars with "wood chips" and would change the load to "wood chips-offspot".? Now the program will always deliver new cars to the off spot track, and then move an old one to the spur for unloading.? Since you have a many wood chip cars, the alternate track is never going to get empty, and the delivery directly to the unloading spur is never needed.

Dan

Clark,

You are correctly describing how the alternate track works.? ?The program will only pull a car from the alternate when the train servicing that location doesn't have a car for the spur.

The program normally doesn't deliver a new car to the alternate, and then pull an old one from the alternate to deliver to the spur, instead it simply delivers the car in the train to the spur.? The car in the train and the cars on the alternate have the same "load", so the program doesn't create the "extra" work of rotating the stock from the alternate.

And yes, cars can sit on the alternate for a long time if there's an ample supply of cars with the appropriate load that the spur is requesting.

If you want the sequence of cars sent to the alternate first, then the spur, you could create a simple schedule that did that.? In this case, you wouldn't use the program's alternate track feature.

Dan

Is it possible that the reason for bypassed cars is due to number of moves on the car? As an example, if the car on the alternate has 200 moves, and the yard car has 10 moves, JMRI will tend to move the car with fewer moves first.?

Andy,

Oh my - didn't realise that this was going to be quite such a herculean task!

Plus it's no real surprise that the Audio dialogs follow the suggested behaviour given that I was responsible for those ;-)

But thanks again for the analysis - this gives some food for thought...

Best regards,

Matt H

Matt H,
I've tried to go through all the Tables 'create' dialogs and have created a pdf with a summary - /g/jmriusers/files/ProblemsBeingWorkedOn/Andy%20Brown%20-%20161045/JMRI%20Tables%20Create%20dialogs.pdf .

You might wish you hadn't asked as there are quite a few inconsistencies! However, it must be added that non are show stoppers, but rather reflect the incremental nature of development.

• The dialogs that close after create are turnouts, sensors, signal masts, signal group, reporter and section
• Only the Audio Source and Audio Buffer dialogs follow your suggested behaviour!
• Audio dialogs provide a suggested system name, others show an empty field or the last used name
• Some provide Auto system name generation (e.g. route and signal group)
• Some provide sequential range option (e.g. sensors and turnouts) -
• Some provide both (e.g. Blocks and memory variables)
• Some hide the required system prefix (e.g Sensors, Turnouts and Blocks), whereas others show and require it (e.g. Audio Buffers and Audio Sources)
• I haven't had chance to go through the validation, but I suspect subtle differences - e.g. Audio Buffer throws an exception when no filename provided, but shows no error dialog. However, duplicate ID Tag, for instance, shows an error dialog. I think analysing this would be a task for another day!!

It looks to me like 'fixing' this would be quite a task, not to mention agreeing on what should be provided. If it's any help I usually prefer dialogs to stay open to allow multiple items to be added, but I can live with how things are! Obviously, your suggest of OK/Apply and Cancel gives both options.

Thanks
Andy

Steve,

The error you're seeing is due to this script using a deprecated (and now removed) way of manipulating the power to the layout, namely:

`jmri.InstanceManager.powerManagerInstance().setPower(jmri.PowerManager.OFF)`

becomes

`jmri.InstanceManager.getDefault(jmri.PowerManager).setPower(jmri.PowerManager.OFF)`

I've modified the file to the new way, and uploaded it to:

/g/jmriusers/files/ProblemsBeingWorkedOn/Speed%20Match%20Loop%20Problem/USpeedMatch_v1.3.2.py

Hopefully that helps you further.

Best regards,

Matt H?

I would like to chime in here by stating that I have the same issue with the Alternate track. The car will go to the alternate track if the spur is full. The car on the alternate track will show its final destination as the spur, but with subsequent builds is bypassed by cars from the yard to the spur. I've tried with / without schedules. The interesting thing is that sometimes it works right, then other times the cars sit in the alternate track. If there isn't another car for the spur from the yard then the car will move from the alternate track to the spur. Build report shows car from alternate track cannot move to spur because of length.

Clark

FWIW

The build report is showing the Spur is too short to move cars from the Alternate to the Spur. The reason the Spur appears to be too short for the Alternate relocation, is because cars are being routed from the yard and directly to the desired Spur, before forwarding cars on the Alternate track (ie program is simply bypassing the Alternate track).?

Jeff

File Location:?/g/jmriusers/files/ProblemsBeingWorkedOn//Speed%20Match%20Loop%20Problem

Ok thanks guys

Dan, you noted in your first response, Not to use schedules, but I am interpreting your follow up to say schedules are ok here?

I am definately using schedules at and to the spur. Schedules are set coming from another spur location that has a Destination with Spur Track filled in (and also tried Spur track left blank). ?A Yard track is set as Alternate for the Spur desired (and tried as a solo yard track less Alternate also). Cars are showing final spur location as they sit in Alternate track but get bypassed by like cars ?/ schedules. ?

Cars were moving in and out on a Sequential schedule... but eratic and unreliable, so I went to a Match schedule and it got worse (cars get turned back and or bypased). ?

Another fellow user that is working on this also noted,?that "with all the schedules and custom loads removed, just operating as an alternate track and only L and E, that when a L car went to the alternate track the L changed to E, meaning the program thinks the car has unloaded at the alternate location.", ?
* ?BUT, I dont currently know the other variables there...

Side note: I also have another location with same results that has two seperate schedules that share both end locations for woodchip car loadings.?

Jeff