开云体育

Locked Turnouts - individual blocks or part of other blocks


 

Hi everyone,

With the aim of achieving layout automation either via warrants or dispatcher (rather than purely coding) when designing and laying out the track should turnouts be isolated blocks or can? they part of an exiting block. If a turnout is an isolated block then I suppose it would need it's own occupancy sensor rather if part of an existing block and able to be assigned the same sensor for the rest of the block. ?
I think I must be the slowest modeller at achieving some form of automation, trying to bring all the elements together and taking one slow step after another.? It appears with jmri you can achieve the same or similar results via different routes and it seems experience often dictates which route you take,? oh for some experience

thanks Steve


 

I'd say in an ideal world they'd be separate blocks but to save on detection I've made mine part of the block to which the toe of the turnout connects. I worked on the basis you couldn't enter that block from either of the diverging routes if it was occupied so you couldn't run onto the turnout. In the other direction you could exit the block via the turnout to one of the two diverging routes if the other was occupied. Does that make sense?

--
Chris White


 

开云体育

Dear Steve
? ?My 8x8 layout has almost 40 switches. Do you really want to buy detection units @ over $100.00 per 8 detections using digitrax for all your switches and run all those extra wires. The claim is that separate blocks for switches works best. ?It’s best if they are located on the end of the block if you dont want to isolate them. ?I pretend switches in middle of block dont exist. I have been testing automation using dispatcher on a 2 loop 4x2 layout for over 6 months, every day since the shut down and so far achieved running 2 engines on a single loop for about 4 minutes before failure occurs. ?Either my hardware works perfectly for a while and then does something bad or the software logic runs perfectly for a while and somehow loses track of things.

Tony





On May 12, 2020, at 6:08 AM, SteveM <steve@...> wrote:

?Hi everyone,

With the aim of achieving layout automation either via warrants or dispatcher (rather than purely coding) when designing and laying out the track should turnouts be isolated blocks or can? they part of an exiting block. If a turnout is an isolated block then I suppose it would need it's own occupancy sensor rather if part of an existing block and able to be assigned the same sensor for the rest of the block. ?
I think I must be the slowest modeller at achieving some form of automation, trying to bring all the elements together and taking one slow step after another.? It appears with jmri you can achieve the same or similar results via different routes and it seems experience often dictates which route you take,? oh for some experience

thanks Steve


 

Hi Steve,

Nothing beats hardware detection for switches separately as their own block. But as Tony said, it will add up moneywise. And in terms of wire. An alternative is to have the block sensors in JMRI, but without the hardware. In that case you need the logic (possibly in Logix) to calculate the expected occupancy taking into account train speeds (either measured or, more simple, expected), train direction, timing and neighbouring block occupancy. Less precision, a lot less money, less effort if you don't count creating the logic, which isn't entirely trivial.

Wouter


On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 11:08, SteveM <steve@...> wrote:
Hi everyone,

With the aim of achieving layout automation either via warrants or dispatcher (rather than purely coding) when designing and laying out the track should turnouts be isolated blocks or can? they part of an exiting block. If a turnout is an isolated block then I suppose it would need it's own occupancy sensor rather if part of an existing block and able to be assigned the same sensor for the rest of the block. ?
I think I must be the slowest modeller at achieving some form of automation, trying to bring all the elements together and taking one slow step after another.? It appears with jmri you can achieve the same or similar results via different routes and it seems experience often dictates which route you take,? oh for some experience

thanks Steve


 

Chris,? what you say makes sense and is what I had started to do, but when I then started to look around for further help as I consider was signalling masts etc and whether SSL or SML everyone seemed to have turnouts in separate block, so I started to doubt my original thinking.
Thnks Steve


 

Hi Tony, ? The cost element of the extra hardware hadn't slipped my notice and I am having to build my system with cost restrictions just to prove to my wife this isn't a whim, so using Sprog and Arduino with both current sensing and optical sensors,? I was partially driven to re-think the turnouts and blocks issue when I tried adding signal masts as jmri wants to add them to boundaries to blocks? which works fine when the turnout is a separate block, when I tried SSL Dispatcher need sections to have directional sensors? so that bamboozled me .
Thanks Steve


 

I see a lot of the issue with separate detection at turnouts depends on what
are the goals of the layout and signaling. Next you get into the track plan
itself, that has quite a bit of impact too.

The issues get into where does a train need to stop and where are the
signals (virtual or physical) that would tell it to stop. Many times from a
signaling view, making an interlocking of multiple turnouts can save signals
and detectors at the expense of you must stop outside of the interlocking
and can't make changes within the interlocking. Granted that's really part
of the definition of an interlocking, a set of trackwork that is controlled
as one unit.

The best reason for turnout detection is to lock the turnout if it is
occupied. Keeps the route from changing when the turnout is in use. Granted
that can mean more manual lifting if somebody runs a turnout and gets part
of the train scattered across it. I may have been easier to operate the
turnout and not have to lift as many cars (provided they stayed on the track
over the points).

The next big reason for having the turnout as a separate detection is for
knowing traffic direction and telling a dispatcher that somebody either
arrived or left somewhere. If all the track (turnout-mainline-turnout)
between towns are only one block, which train moved? The one at the left or
right town?

In the model here is a case showing some advantages and disadvantages of
interlocking multiple turnouts.:
Single track feeds into two left hand turnouts. Normal leads to mainline,
diverging first turnout and normal second turnout leads to passing siding,
both turnouts diverging leads to yard tracks. The signals are on a three
track bridge over the middle of the turnouts. Having these two as one
interlocking leads to a train on the mainline can stop closer to the first
turnout than a train on the passing that must stop short of the second
turnout. Many model crews have a hard time doing that. Since the second
turnout is normal, they see it as straight track and pull onto that turnout.
But as a single interlocking, they have now fowled themselves. Even using
yellow marked ties to remind crews where the gaps are, they seem to forget a
lot, then complain to the dispatcher why they are sitting at a red signal
(which they caused). At one layout this is three turnouts in a row where the
second turnout is an industry spur and the third is the passing or yard. The
distance difference depending on which track you are on is rather long.

But if you have single track between two points with passing at both, it is
really simple with the turnouts and the single track being one block. They
get a red when somebody is in between and a yellow if somebody is on the
track in the next town. If those turnouts are separate detection, it takes
more logic to manage this same behavior.

Lots more examples and discussions available. Chew on some of this a bit and
give more thought. If you want to do proper CTC, you need the separate
blocks for the turnouts. Otherwise a number of the board operations will not
be prototypical.

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


 

开云体育

I dont know what sprog and arduino is but i assume its cheaper.

For the direction sensors just define a bunch of sensors in your sensor table. Then when you define each ssl signal place a sensor for the 2 directions where it asks for it in the window that your using. ?They are not actual sensors but placeholders four ssl logic to use. ?I use ssl signals on jmri. ?No physical signals so they dont add cost.?

Most people using automation claim sml signals are better. ?If i remember correctly sml are not placed at switches. ?When have switches in the block It causes the train to stop a block further than the signal is. At least thats what happens when i tried sml.

Using ssl if block 1 is occupied then block 2 behind it is where the train following it will stop. Thus with only a 6 block loop and setting allocations it 2 instead of 3 you can get 2 trains running on that loop.?

Tony


On May 12, 2020, at 9:35 AM, SteveM <steve@...> wrote:

?Hi Tony, ? The cost element of the extra hardware hadn't slipped my notice and I am having to build my system with cost restrictions just to prove to my wife this isn't a whim, so using Sprog and Arduino with both current sensing and optical sensors,? I was partially driven to re-think the turnouts and blocks issue when I tried adding signal masts as jmri wants to add them to boundaries to blocks? which works fine when the turnout is a separate block, when I tried SSL Dispatcher need sections to have directional sensors? so that bamboozled me .
Thanks Steve


 

Ken, thank you for the very helpful discussion. It's given me another reason I'm not interested in having proper CTC on my layout. I doubt I'd ever get it finished, anyway. I'm 76, and have only about half my mainline installed so far, and no scenery, and my wiring is all connected together so far with wire nuts into one gigantic effective block!

I have to provision for two blocks between some towns, the ones where I might want to sent a way freight out to switch an industry some little distance from the town. Meanwhile, a train in the next town can use its half of that track between those towns to aid switching there. In other places, there's just one block between towns.

Several of those blocks connect to passing tracks at the town ends, have a turnout to service an industry in their middle, and both the main line continuation and the siding are part of that same block. It limits detection and signaling precision, but means I can switch that industry entirely in one block. I'm satisfied with it.

My old layout had many blocks, as it was built for DC trains with multiple throttles. When converted to DCC, the blocks weren't very useful, except for isolating shorts, and for reversing loops and wyes. So, I'm rebuilding with fewer blocks. It will suit how I use my railroad. Others have different goals and so different requirements.

Don Weigt
Connecticut


 

Hello Tony,? thank you for the feed back,? I will give your suggestions a try.? at the moment I am just using Layout Editor and a simple layout to 'practice' and see what works and doesn't before I start modifying my track out .
thank Steve