¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

  1. Jmriusers
  2. Topics

Locked CROSSOVERS

 

JMRI VER 4.12 JAVA 1.8.0 WIN 10 HOME RUNNING UNDER PARALLELS ON AN IMAC

I have been trying to replace my old Crossovers with the newer version in the Layout Editor but I cannot get the LH one to work correctly.
The RH has the Start (BLUE Connector) position correctly shown as being at the throat of the top turnout. Since I put my turnouts into the same block as that joined to the Throat this works fine.
The LH Crossover is wrong I believe. The BLUE connection is maintained as the top LH corner. Should this not be the Top RH Corner at the throat of the turnout? The track world be either a Spur of a Headshunt as it is set at the moment.

Can this be changed? Could this be why we are getting the instability in all of the other Crossovers, Slips, etc?

Dave
 

After trying again for a while to get the LH Crossover to work properly I need to add something to my original post. The BLUE Connection could be the Bottom LH Corner of the icon. The Crossover Editor allows me to add in the name of the associated Turnout but in the Layout Editor it will not allow me to enter it there. Can this field be activated, please when selecting the appropriate Crossover/Slips etc?

I have experimented with the mac keyboard keys to try to prevent the instability that occurs when placing any Slip on the layout design. Sometimes Double Clicking will work when placing the item, sometimes not. Similarly, when using the Shift, Control, Option, Command or Esc keys I get a similar response but as yet I am unable to place these first time, every time, without fail.

Dave
 

Dave,

The only function of the blue connection is to identify position A on the cross-over. The positions are B, C and D moving clockwise.

For the best results with signaling, the A and B sections are in one block and C and D in another block. When the cross-over is normal, there are two independent routes.


For unknown historical reasons, the four points on a slip are counter clockwise.

Dave Sand

On Nov 27, 2018, at 3:18 AM, Dave Roberts <dccdaveroberts@...> wrote:

JMRI VER 4.12 JAVA 1.8.0 WIN 10 HOME RUNNING UNDER PARALLELS ON AN IMAC

I have been trying to replace my old Crossovers with the newer version in the Layout Editor but I cannot get the LH one to work correctly.
The RH has the Start (BLUE Connector) position correctly shown as being at the throat of the top turnout. Since I put my turnouts into the same block as that joined to the Throat this works fine.
The LH Crossover is wrong I believe. The BLUE connection is maintained as the top LH corner. Should this not be the Top RH Corner at the throat of the turnout? The track world be either a Spur of a Headshunt as it is set at the moment.

Can this be changed? Could this be why we are getting the instability in all of the other Crossovers, Slips, etc?

Dave
 

Dave,

I don¡¯t know what you mean by the blue connection in the bottom LH corner. For assigning the turnout name, are you talking about the tool bar or the right click context menu Edit item?

Moving a slip has a known problem where the D position (upper right) gets attached to the mouse. To release the D position, move the mouse close to the D indicator and ¡°move" the D indicator to where you want it. If done correctly, the B indicator will also move at the same since B and D are connected, as are A and C.

The slip issue can also be avoided by inverting the snap on move option using the keyboard. An a Mac, command-click-drag is used to move an item. Adding the option key will invert the snap on move option and the slip will move without the D issue.

Since Parallels allows you to share between macOS and Windows, you could use either the Mac version or Windows version of JMRI. This could reduce your keyboard issues.

I have my profiles and user locations shared on macOS. Using Parallels I can use either Windows or Linux to test out panels.


Dave Sand

On Nov 27, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Dave Roberts <dccdaveroberts@...> wrote:

After trying again for a while to get the LH Crossover to work properly I need to add something to my original post. The BLUE Connection could be the Bottom LH Corner of the icon. The Crossover Editor allows me to add in the name of the associated Turnout but in the Layout Editor it will not allow me to enter it there. Can this field be activated, please when selecting the appropriate Crossover/Slips etc?

I have experimented with the mac keyboard keys to try to prevent the instability that occurs when placing any Slip on the layout design. Sometimes Double Clicking will work when placing the item, sometimes not. Similarly, when using the Shift, Control, Option, Command or Esc keys I get a similar response but as yet I am unable to place these first time, every time, without fail.

Dave
 

Dave,

Thank you for the explanation. I understand the convention being used to identify the attached Blocks and see the underlying logic.

What I am also seeing in the actual icons used for both RH and LH Crossovers in the Tool Bar of the Layout Editor is a breakdown in the logic. With the RH Crossover icon position A is identified as the Top LH corner and this is correctly shown as being on the Throat of the Turnout. As you say, going clockwise, A & B are on one route and C & D are on a separate route.

It is not possible to repeat this for the LH Crossover - using the Throat of the turnout as A - without placing A at the Top RH Corner and reversing the direction. Given that this may prove to be problematic to implement and the fact that the Blue is only to identify the 'Start Position A' in the sequence then it should not matter which connection is made first so long as the pairings are maintained.

With regard to the Turnout Name and Associated Turnout Name fields. In the Tool Bar of the Layout Editor when I select a Crossover I am allowed to enter a Name in the Turnout Name field but I cannot select the Associated Turnout field and enter data here. This is in line with the Notes that say there is usually only one turnout in the Turnout Table since both turnouts are operated as one, at the same time. However, this is a connection that JMRI need to be aware of. This is dealt with using the Turnout Editor where this Associated Turnout can be edited in. I was just asking that the Field in the Tool Bar of Layout Editor be changed so that the Alternative Turnout's Name can be added here too.

A final thank you for the Mac keystroke info. I'll try this when I get to the next Crossover/Slip/Double Crossover.

Dave
 

Dave,

It appears to me that you are assigning an attribute to position A that does not exist. A to D are track segment connection points and provide a handy means of identifying the routes through a cross-over or slip, such as A <--> B.

JMRI knows that the point ends for a left hand cross-over are at B and D. And are at A and C for a right hand cross-over.

On the tool bar, the "Additional Name" field is only active for slips. They require two turnouts. I don¡¯t know the reasoning behind the design. One thought is that requiring explicit actions in the Edit screen to select the additional turnout eliminates accidental turnout pairs.

Dave Sand

On Nov 27, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Dave Roberts <dccdaveroberts@...> wrote:

Dave,

Thank you for the explanation. I understand the convention being used to identify the attached Blocks and see the underlying logic.

What I am also seeing in the actual icons used for both RH and LH Crossovers in the Tool Bar of the Layout Editor is a breakdown in the logic. With the RH Crossover icon position A is identified as the Top LH corner and this is correctly shown as being on the Throat of the Turnout. As you say, going clockwise, A & B are on one route and C & D are on a separate route.

It is not possible to repeat this for the LH Crossover - using the Throat of the turnout as A - without placing A at the Top RH Corner and reversing the direction. Given that this may prove to be problematic to implement and the fact that the Blue is only to identify the 'Start Position A' in the sequence then it should not matter which connection is made first so long as the pairings are maintained.

With regard to the Turnout Name and Associated Turnout Name fields. In the Tool Bar of the Layout Editor when I select a Crossover I am allowed to enter a Name in the Turnout Name field but I cannot select the Associated Turnout field and enter data here. This is in line with the Notes that say there is usually only one turnout in the Turnout Table since both turnouts are operated as one, at the same time. However, this is a connection that JMRI need to be aware of. This is dealt with using the Turnout Editor where this Associated Turnout can be edited in. I was just asking that the Field in the Tool Bar of Layout Editor be changed so that the Alternative Turnout's Name can be added here too.

A final thank you for the Mac keystroke info. I'll try this when I get to the next Crossover/Slip/Double Crossover.

Dave
 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Dave,

Once again, thank you for your insight. I believe that you may be correct in your supposition - Wood and Trees springs to mind!

If the appropriate Signals are also considered at the initial stage of the layout design then that would explain some of the apparent anomalies and these, as you suggest, are to eliminate accidental Pairing of Turnouts.?

However, since Crossovers require two Turnouts then it does follow that, just as with Slips, the Crossovers, when selected, should also be allowed to select the "Additional Name¡± field too.

I think it is still worth pursuing the request to have this change applied to the Tool Bar of the Layout Editor.

Dave.

On 27 Nov 2018, at 21:25, Dave Sand <ds@...> wrote:

Dave,

It appears to me that you are assigning an attribute to position A that does not exist. ?A to D are track segment connection points and provide a handy means of identifying the routes through a cross-over or slip, such as A <--> B.

JMRI knows that the point ends for a left hand cross-over are at B and D. ?And are at A and C for a right hand cross-over.

On the tool bar, the "Additional Name" field is only active for slips. ??They require two turnouts. ?I don¡¯t know the reasoning behind the design. ?One thought is that requiring explicit actions in the Edit screen to select the additional turnout eliminates accidental turnout pairs.

Dave Sand


On Nov 27, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Dave Roberts <dccdaveroberts@...> wrote:

Dave,

Thank you for the explanation. I understand the convention being used to identify the attached Blocks and see the underlying logic.

What I am also seeing in the actual icons used for both RH and LH Crossovers in the Tool Bar of the Layout Editor is a breakdown in the logic. With the RH Crossover icon position A is identified as the Top LH corner and this is correctly shown as being on the Throat of the Turnout. As you say, going clockwise, A & B are on one route and C & D are on a separate route.

It is not possible to repeat this for the LH Crossover - using the Throat of the turnout as A - without placing A at the Top RH Corner and reversing the direction. Given that this may prove to be problematic to implement and the fact that the Blue is only to identify the 'Start Position A' in the sequence then it should not matter which connection is made first so long as the pairings are maintained.

With regard to the Turnout Name and Associated Turnout Name fields. In the Tool Bar of the Layout Editor when I select a Crossover I am allowed to enter a Name in the Turnout Name field but I cannot select the Associated Turnout field and enter data here. This is in line with the Notes that say there is usually only one turnout in the Turnout Table since both turnouts are operated as one, at the same time. However, this is a connection that JMRI need to be aware of. This is dealt with using the Turnout Editor where this Associated Turnout can be edited in. I was just asking that the Field in the Tool Bar of Layout Editor be changed so that the Alternative Turnout's Name can be added here too.

A final thank you for the Mac keystroke info. I'll try this when I get to the next Crossover/Slip/Double Crossover.

Dave
 

Just an off the wall thought from a not yet active user, triggered by this thrread

Hows does JMRI view gauntlet track sections?

Andy

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
 

Dave,

Minor quibble: Cross-overs do not ¡°require" two turnouts. Whether one switch machine with linkages, two switch machines driven by one turnout command or two JMRI turnouts and two switch machines is an implementation decision.

Dave Sand

On Nov 27, 2018, at 5:32 PM, Dave Roberts <dccdaveroberts@...> wrote:

Dave,

Once again, thank you for your insight. I believe that you may be correct in your supposition - Wood and Trees springs to mind!

If the appropriate Signals are also considered at the initial stage of the layout design then that would explain some of the apparent anomalies and these, as you suggest, are to eliminate accidental Pairing of Turnouts.

However, since Crossovers require two Turnouts then it does follow that, just as with Slips, the Crossovers, when selected, should also be allowed to select the "Additional Name¡± field too.

I think it is still worth pursuing the request to have this change applied to the Tool Bar of the Layout Editor.

Dave.

On 27 Nov 2018, at 21:25, Dave Sand <ds@...> wrote:

Dave,

It appears to me that you are assigning an attribute to position A that does not exist. A to D are track segment connection points and provide a handy means of identifying the routes through a cross-over or slip, such as A <--> B.

JMRI knows that the point ends for a left hand cross-over are at B and D. And are at A and C for a right hand cross-over.

On the tool bar, the "Additional Name" field is only active for slips. They require two turnouts. I don¡¯t know the reasoning behind the design. One thought is that requiring explicit actions in the Edit screen to select the additional turnout eliminates accidental turnout pairs.

Dave Sand


On Nov 27, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Dave Roberts <dccdaveroberts@...> wrote:

Dave,

Thank you for the explanation. I understand the convention being used to identify the attached Blocks and see the underlying logic.

What I am also seeing in the actual icons used for both RH and LH Crossovers in the Tool Bar of the Layout Editor is a breakdown in the logic. With the RH Crossover icon position A is identified as the Top LH corner and this is correctly shown as being on the Throat of the Turnout. As you say, going clockwise, A & B are on one route and C & D are on a separate route.

It is not possible to repeat this for the LH Crossover - using the Throat of the turnout as A - without placing A at the Top RH Corner and reversing the direction. Given that this may prove to be problematic to implement and the fact that the Blue is only to identify the 'Start Position A' in the sequence then it should not matter which connection is made first so long as the pairings are maintained.

With regard to the Turnout Name and Associated Turnout Name fields. In the Tool Bar of the Layout Editor when I select a Crossover I am allowed to enter a Name in the Turnout Name field but I cannot select the Associated Turnout field and enter data here. This is in line with the Notes that say there is usually only one turnout in the Turnout Table since both turnouts are operated as one, at the same time. However, this is a connection that JMRI need to be aware of. This is dealt with using the Turnout Editor where this Associated Turnout can be edited in. I was just asking that the Field in the Tool Bar of Layout Editor be changed so that the Alternative Turnout's Name can be added here too.

A final thank you for the Mac keystroke info. I'll try this when I get to the next Crossover/Slip/Double Crossover.

Dave
 

Andy,

The short answer: JMRI does not.

As far as JMRI knows, it is just two parallel tracks. Since only one train can be in the gauntlet it needs to be protected like a single track line.

The initial inclination is to treat the gauntlet as one block. That leads to a lot of potential issues relating to block routing, signaling and automation.

It is a lot cleaner to declare the gauntlet as two blocks. Depending on the requirements this may require Logix. For basic signaling the SSL or SML needs to look at both blocks.

Dave Sand

On Nov 27, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Andy Reichert <andy_r@...> wrote:

Just an off the wall thought from a not yet active user, triggered by this thrread

Hows does JMRI view gauntlet track sections?

Andy

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
 

Thanks Dave,

I'll watch out for that when I'm ready to implement.

Andy

On 11/27/2018 4:29 PM, Dave Sand wrote:
Andy,

The short answer: JMRI does not.

As far as JMRI knows, it is just two parallel tracks. Since only one train can be in the gauntlet it needs to be protected like a single track line.

The initial inclination is to treat the gauntlet as one block. That leads to a lot of potential issues relating to block routing, signaling and automation.

It is a lot cleaner to declare the gauntlet as two blocks. Depending on the requirements this may require Logix. For basic signaling the SSL or SML needs to look at both blocks.

Dave Sand


On Nov 27, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Andy Reichert <andy_r@...> wrote:

Just an off the wall thought from a not yet active user, triggered by this thrread

Hows does JMRI view gauntlet track sections?

Andy

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
 

>>>?However, since Crossovers require two Turnouts
Crossovers don¡¯t require two turnouts¡­ they really only have two usable states: ¡°Normal¡± and ¡°Diverging¡±. These two states can apply to multiple turnout actuators but aren¡¯t ¡°required¡±.
 

I defy you to make a real crossover with only one turnout.

Logically it may have only two states, and one JMRI "turnout" definition may suffice to control it. But, having the JMRI configuration not match the physical one only makes it that much harder for us newbies to fathom how all this works on our physical layouts... One to one mapping is much easier to understand!

On a sad note, I learned today that Sudro Brown has passed. He has been mentioned here as a JMRI expert in central Massachusetts. He was a local JMRI hero. Hearing Sudro demonstrate and expound the advantages of JMRI is what made me consider trying it. He'd say, "If you're not using JMRI, why aren't you?!"

I will miss having a JMRI expert in my NMRA division covering Connecticut and part of Massachusetts. It makes me even more appreciative of the time and effort knowledgeable members of this group spend helping the rest of us. Thank you all!

Don Weigt
 

Don,

I have several on my layout. They consist of a single turnout motor driving a bar pivoted at the center point between the two switch points. (under the roadbed) Think a piece of a yardstick, but it is actually just a wooden stick about that size. Each end of the bar has a piano wire mounted vertically that passes up through the roadbed to each throw bar. This results in the points moving in opposite directions as needed for a crossover. The flex in the piano wire accounts for any small errors in alignment between the two ends of the actuator bar. Because of the length of the bar the motion at the pivot is very small and I expect them to last well past the 15-20 years that they have been installed. One actually has dual bars that control a double crossover. (two machines, and 3 positions, left, straight, and right) That one has the pivots offset from the centers of the bars so that they don't both need to be at the same spot.

Dick :)

On 11/28/2018 5:18 PM, Don Weigt wrote:
I defy you to make a real crossover with only one turnout.
 

The MOLE I switch machine I designed has a double ended throw side arm, so that, using tube in wire, connected at each end, it can operate throws in opposite directions simultaneously.

The MOLE itself is hidden in this clip, but you can see it throwing both points of one end of a double crossover in the street track progress you tube video
?
?starting at ~ 15 seconds in.

The Proto:87 SIG has developed a lot of inexpensive technology for Proto:87, that is just as useful for regular HO.

Andy

?On 11/28/2018 2:18 PM, Don Weigt wrote:
I defy you to make a real crossover with only one turnout.

Logically it may have only two states, and one JMRI "turnout" definition may suffice to control it. But, having the JMRI configuration not match the physical one only makes it that much harder for us newbies to fathom how all this works on our physical layouts... One to one mapping is much easier to understand!

On a sad note, I learned today that Sudro Brown has passed. He has been mentioned here as a JMRI expert in central Massachusetts. He was a local JMRI hero. Hearing Sudro demonstrate and expound the advantages of JMRI is what made me consider trying it. He'd say, "If you're not using JMRI, why aren't you?!"

I will miss having a JMRI expert in my NMRA division covering Connecticut and part of Massachusetts. It makes me even more appreciative of the time and effort knowledgeable members of this group spend helping the rest of us. Thank you all!

Don Weigt


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
 

Crossovers can have one to four turnout actuators (and I¡¯ve seen all combinations on real layouts) but only two actual useful states. There¡¯s little advantage to having any additoinal turnout actuators at different addresses. I¡¯ve only ever seen them all share the same address.

If your heart is set on using different address (for what ever reason you¡¯ve contrived) you could ¡°build your own¡± crossover using two left hand or two right hand (for single crossovers) or both and a level crossing (diamond) (for dual crossovers).
 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

I do think that we have ¡®lost the plot¡¯ in this discourse. The original posting was not about ¡®actuators¡¯ or how we control the turnouts but simply that where multiple turnouts are used then each turnout should have its own name and the ability to enter the ¡®Associated Turnouts¡¯ name in the Tool Bar of the Layout Editor when initially creating the design as well as the ability to do this using the Turnout Editor.

I read more into the use of the Blue connector than I should have which, in turn, opened the door to signalling these formations and that led onto the control of multiple turnouts.

Lots of useful info nevertheless!

Dave


- Dave

On 29 Nov 2018, at 09:33, George Warner via Groups.Io <geowar1@...> wrote:

Crossovers can have one to four turnout actuators (and I¡¯ve seen all combinations on real layouts) but only two actual useful states. There¡¯s little advantage to having any additoinal turnout actuators at different addresses. I¡¯ve only ever seen them all share the same address.

If your heart is set on using different address (for what ever reason you¡¯ve contrived) you could ¡°build your own¡± crossover using two left hand or two right hand (for single crossovers) or both and a level crossing (diamond) (for dual crossovers).

 

Maybe, but JMRI operations option is to run at least US model railroads in a prototypically realistic sequence of events.

So for matching infrastructure's realism's sake, it is worth noting that at least US real railroads do not normally use two separate turnouts as a crossover. Unlike individual turnouts, a crossover on double track spacing has full width timbering continuously through and between both frogs. That makes it immediately obvious on a model if that track configuration? has also been modeled realistically.

Andy

Ref. AAR engineering drawings



main raison d'etre is to On 11/29/2018 2:30 AM, Dave Roberts wrote:
I do think that we have ¡®lost the plot¡¯ in this discourse. The original posting was not about ¡®actuators¡¯ or how we control the turnouts but simply that where multiple turnouts are used then each turnout should have its own name and the ability to enter the ¡®Associated Turnouts¡¯ name in the Tool Bar of the Layout Editor when initially creating the design as well as the ability to do this using the Turnout Editor.

I read more into the use of the Blue connector than I should have which, in turn, opened the door to signalling these formations and that led onto the control of multiple turnouts.

Lots of useful info nevertheless!

Dave


- Dave

On 29 Nov 2018, at 09:33, George Warner via Groups.Io <geowar1@... <mailto:geowar1@...>> wrote:

Crossovers can have one to four turnout actuators (and I¡¯ve seen all combinations on real layouts) but only two actual useful states. There¡¯s little advantage to having any additoinal turnout actuators at different addresses. I¡¯ve only ever seen them all share the same address.

If your heart is set on using different address (for what ever reason you¡¯ve contrived) you could ¡°build your own¡± crossover using two left hand or two right hand (for single crossovers) or both and a level crossing (diamond) (for dual crossovers).


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.

1 - 18 of 18