Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
Search
Locked CROSSOVERS AND OTHER FORMATIONS
|
My query is to do with the icons we can use within The Layout editor to represent the various formations and the actual turnouts on the layout that make up the formation.
I have several crossovers and two Double Crossovers to install. The icons are excellent and work a treat on the layout editor panels. However, these are made up of several turnouts and a Diamond Crossing on the layout and it occurred to me that should I not be using these icons but make them up exactly the same as on the actual layout? This would be a real shame since all formations including Slips and 3-ways are working perfectly on the panels and such a lot of work has gone into getting the icons to work correctly. I am certain that someone else raised this same point ( excuse the pun!) in a recent discussion about getting turnout formation icons on panels to control the relevant turnouts on the actual layout but I have not been able to locate the comment. Controlling the turnouts together is not a problem since both opposing pairs can have the same address and work together. Which is the correct way to go please? Sent from my iPhone - Dave |
|
The solution I use is to recognise the difference between Layout Editor (which is a logical description of the layout), and the Panel Editors (which are graphically free-form control panels). Within the Layout Editor, appearance is to an extent limited. Within the Panel Editors there is complete freedom to produce controls which have any appearance, and have controls in any location.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The customised Panels will then control the layout, and their actions appear on the Layout Editor, and any automated logic dependent on the Layout Editor will be triggered. - Nigel -----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Roberts Sent: 11 December 2018 13:09 To: [email protected] Subject: [jmriusers] CROSSOVERS AND OTHER FORMATIONS My query is to do with the icons we can use within The Layout editor to represent the various formations and the actual turnouts on the layout that make up the formation. I have several crossovers and two Double Crossovers to install. The icons are excellent and work a treat on the layout editor panels. However, these are made up of several turnouts and a Diamond Crossing on the layout and it occurred to me that should I not be using these icons but make them up exactly the same as on the actual layout? This would be a real shame since all formations including Slips and 3-ways are working perfectly on the panels and such a lot of work has gone into getting the icons to work correctly. I am certain that someone else raised this same point ( excuse the pun!) in a recent discussion about getting turnout formation icons on panels to control the relevant turnouts on the actual layout but I have not been able to locate the comment. Controlling the turnouts together is not a problem since both opposing pairs can have the same address and work together. Which is the correct way to go please? Sent from my iPhone - Dave |
|
Dave R,
With LE it depends on your goal. Most of my LE panels have been 'logical' layout for simplest implementation of signals. Others refer to this as a 'dispatcher' view. So for logic, it may use a left turnout on the panel where the track was really a right turnout. Reason is keeping a clean view of the side vs main track. If your goal however is to show the physical layout, then you may have to use a number of tricks like the discrete turnouts and then need extra logic to make them respond the right way. -Ken Cameron, Member JMRI Dev Team www.jmri.org www.fingerlakeslivesteamers.org www.cnymod.com www.syracusemodelrr.org |
|
There isn't a "correct" way and how you set up your panels is very much up to you.? Use the facilities given and add things you want to add.? There is no point (pun intended!) in putting in detailed layouts made up of individual turnouts which can represented by Layout Editor - UNLESS it makes it easier to see things on the panel when carrying out control sequences.? For example I have used crossovers for 3 crossovers BUT I have used back to back turnouts for a double slip because it made putting in signals and control buttons easier.? Your panel is a control diagram so you don't need it to look EXACTLY like your layout - though I believe that you can import track plans to JMRI (I have a contact who has done this).? I have made new sensor buttons and changed the BR-2003 icons provided to get the system I want.? Try looking at some signal box diagrams to get an idea.? I'll send you a picture of my panel if it might help - send to iain at iandjtolmie dot com.
|
|
Dave,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Did you actually install 4 turnouts and a level crossing or did you purchase and install a pre-built double cross-over? Regardless of how it is constructed, the operational aspects do not change. I would use the icons since they incorporate the logic to handle the switch machines and signal masts. Dave Sand On Dec 11, 2018, at 7:08 AM, Dave Roberts <dccdaveroberts@...> wrote: |
|
Iain,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Interesting comment on slips. I find it easier to use slips. One time I created a slip ladder (3 slips) using slips, signal masts and signal mast logic. Dave Sand On Dec 11, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Iain <iain@...> wrote: |
|
Dave,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The UP and DOWN Double Crossings are made up using 4 PECO Finescale Turnouts, a Diamond Crossing and short lengths of flexitrack to facilitate movements from UP Main to UP Relief and from UP Relief to UP Main and similarly for the DOWN Main and DOWN Relief at the 4-road Western exit of my main station. I have read both Ken and Nigel's replies and it would appear that I need to replicate the LE panels as Control Panels to get better control of the Turnouts and associated signals so I now need to break down the layout into each of the three locations. The layout has now been expanded to cover two stations and a Depot Yard so I need to Rename the whole layout plan as the relevant Station names and Depot name and remove all track beyond the Edge Connectors between the three locations so that I will have three separate Control Panels, one for each location, connected together by the Edge Connectors. The Main Station is the one I am working on at the moment. It is the turnout formations for both the East and West Approaches that has given rise to this query. Just to make things more complicated it would now appear that at least one of the Double Crossovers may end up being formed on a curve! However, as you say, this will not mean that there is a need to change the control of the relevant turnouts as I will still be following the straight on route or the crossover route through the formation. Dave On 11 Dec 2018, at 17:40, Dave Sand <ds@...> wrote: |
|
Fraser,
The excellent work done on the Icons makes their use easier to follow. The Double slip is not a problem since it can be treated much like a Crossover. You still have only two routes that can be followed from either end - the crossover or the A to C or B to D and the slips equivalent of the straight through route A to D or B to C. It is the Single Slip that required a little thought when placing it. The A to D connection is still there but the B to C is not. This means that the icon, as currently drawn, puts the slip route at the top of the icon. You need to reverse the icon (Rotate it 180 Degrees) to put the A to D connection on the bottom to get the slip to be the other side. It is the method of connecting the correct icon connector to the actual turnout on the layout that sometimes causes a few problems since they are system dependant. Dave |
|
The debate seems to revolve round whether you want an accurate picture of the layout or an abstract control panel.? I am an old style signal man and appreciate the latter.? There is nothing "right" or "wrong" with either approach (or any mixture) - they are just different. I (because of my past) cannot understand curves on control panels: all I am used to is straight lines, which frequently (indeed nearly always) have little relationship between the actual length of the tracks between objects and the length of the line on the panel.? I gather that some layout CAD systems export files that can be imported into JMRI, so it you really want/need an accurate representation it's probably easier to do it that way than to repeat the whole design process when creating a control panel (of whichever JMRI flavour you prefer).
You would all probably hate my panel - and it's only a tiny layout anyway - but anyone used to such panels in the UK could operate it easily. The major consideration may well be the amount of automation you want to apply from all the other JMRI features, but I would have thought that it would understand 2 back to back turnouts just as well as a double slip. Some of the new Timetable stuff may (will be?) more influenced by actual lengths/distances: though whether the actual panel needs to be proportional I don't know. Anyway - I am grateful for the huge amount of work that has gone into JMRI and I am grateful for the huge amount of flexibility available which allows users to do their own thing.? The problem (and it was mine when I started) is getting used to the fact that in most cases there are many ways to achieve the desired end. |
Ken Cameron
to navigate to use esc to dismiss